Calcutta HC Reduces Man's Sentence, Holding Bamboo Stick or Rod Not A Weapon Likely To Cause Death  ||  Kerala HC: Siblings Cannot Claim Compensation for ‘Loss of Love’ in Motor Accident Death Cases  ||  Gujarat HC: Judicial Fixation of Standard Rent Inapplicable to New Construction After 2001 Amendment  ||  Orissa HC: 60-Day Disposal of DV Act Plea May Not be Practical but Long Adjournments Must be Avoided  ||  Madras HC: Minister Regupathy Gave a Mischievous Political Twist to the Thiruparankundram Issue  ||  Jharkhand HC Cautions Officers, Says Citing Proposed SLP in SC to Delay Compliance is ‘In Bad Faith’  ||  Madras High Court Directs Action Against District Collector For Ex-Parte Stance In Govt Land Case  ||  Karnataka High Court Grants Three-Day Emergency Parole To Disabled Life Convict For Sister’s Wedding  ||  Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail to Woman in Double Murder Case Filed Two Years After Deaths  ||  Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail to Woman in Double Murder Case Filed Two Years After Deaths    

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