J&K&L High Court: Illegal Occupation of Shamilat Land Cannot Become Legal Right  ||  Bombay HC: Land Reservation Lapses if No Acquisition Within 24 Months of Purchase Notice  ||  Gujarat High Court: Conditional Sale Mortgage Differs From Sale with Repurchase  ||  Calcutta High Court: Transfer to Commercial Court No Bar to Counterclaim with Leave  ||  Calcutta High Court: FIR Delay Not Fatal; Insurer Must Prove Policy Breach for Recovery  ||  Madras High Court: State Temple Festivals Must Not Perpetuate Caste, Aim to Annihilate it  ||  Calcutta HC: Economic Abuse Enables DV Case at Current Residence  ||  Calcutta HC: Economic Abuse Enables DV Case at Current Residence  ||  Bom.HC: Courts have no Discretion to Award Lesser Sentence When Law Prescribes Minimum Punishment  ||  Bombay HC: Single Mother Recognized as Complete Parent for Child’s Identity    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved