Gauhati HC: Notice Issued to Centre on Plea Claiming Denial of ST Benefits to Yobin Community  ||  Delhi HC: Dispute between Author, Manikarnika Films and Netflix Referred to Mediation  ||  Bombay HC: A Woman Who Says 'No' Means 'No'  ||  Chh. HC: Adoptive Mothers Have Fundamental Right to Life & Motherhood Under Article 21 of COI  ||  Delhi HC: Wikimedia Foundation Withdraws its Appeal Against ANI  ||  SC Sets Out Procedure for Verification of Electronic Voting Machines  ||  Supreme Court: NCLAT Cannot Condone Appeal Filed beyond 45 Days  ||  SC: Not Necessary to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Summon Additional Accused  ||  SC: Courts Should Refrain from Interfering With Invocation of Bank Guarantee Except in Cases of Fraud  ||  SC: Courts Should Refrain from Interfering With Invocation of Bank Guarantee Except in Cases of Fraud    

The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service vs. Nyhonyha and Others - (18 May 2023)

Interference would be called for, if the exercise of the discretion was based on a misdirection of fact or a wrong principle of law

Company

Present is an appeal by the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) against an order setting aside the winding-up of Regiments Capital (Pty) Ltd (Regiments). The issues before the present Court is whether the setting aside of a winding-up under Section 354 of the Companies Act, 1973 constitutes the exercise of a discretion in the strict sense (true discretion); and whether Regiments was commercially solvent at the time of the hearing in the court a quo.

The scope for interference on appeal with the exercise of a true discretion is limited. The question is not whether the appeal court would have reached the same conclusion, but whether the discretion was exercised properly. For present purposes, it suffices to say that interference would be called for if the exercise of the discretion was based on a misdirection of fact or a wrong principle of law.

A true discretion is one that provides a court with a range of permissible options. The test for setting aside a winding-up under Section 354 on the basis of subsequent events, is whether the applicant has proved facts that show that it is unnecessary or undesirable for the winding up to continue. This does not involve a choice between permissible alternatives. The test is satisfied or it is not. Therefore, it followed that the decision of the court a quo did not constitute the exercise of a true discretion.

It is trite that, the admissibility of an opinion as evidence in a court of law depends on whether it is expressed by an expert in the field. On Regiments’ solvency, the present Court held that on the evidence before the court a quo, Regiments was both factually and commercially insolvent. On these facts, there was no basis for finding that the continuation of its winding-up was unnecessary or undesirable.

Tags : WINDING UP   DISCRETION   SOLVENCY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved