SC: Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Correct Factual Errors Despite Alleged Concealment  ||  Supreme Court: Wrong Statement in Pleadings is Not Always a False Statement, Perjury Case Quashed  ||  SC: Under JJ Act, Murder Falls Within Heinous Offences; S. 302 IPC Prescribes Minimum Life Sentence  ||  Supreme Court: Cognisance of FERA Complaint is Invalid Without Prior Notice to the Accused  ||  Supreme Court: Terror Cases Cannot Curtail Constitutional Safeguards and the Right to Fair Trial  ||  Supreme Court: Terror Cases Cannot Curtail Constitutional Safeguards and the Right to Fair Trial  ||  SC Upheld Husband's Conviction For Murdering His Wife over an Extramarital Affair  ||  J&K&L High Court: Mere Admission of Issuing Cheque is Not a Plea of Guilt under S.138 NI Act  ||  Calcutta HC: Aadhaar Card Prima Facie Establishes Occupation; Demolition Without Notice is Unlawful  ||  Gauhati High Court: Wildlife Law Doesn't Bar Trade in Unprotected Ornamental Fish Species    

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