Supreme Court: Banks Cannot Effectively Blacklist Lawyers by Placing Them on Caution Lists  ||  Madras HC: Advocates Can't Seek Out-of-Turn Case Listing Through Writ Petitions  ||  J&K&L HC: Vehicle Can't Remain in Police Custody During NDPS Trial over Possible Confiscation  ||  J&K&L HC: Prolonged Stagnation in Small Cadres Does Not Grant Right to Promotion  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Bail Plea of Athar Khan in Alleged Delhi Riots Conspiracy  ||  Delhi HC Full Bench: School Employee's Suspension Ends if DOE Approval Isn't Given in 15 Days  ||  Allahabad HC: Mere Note of Failed Conciliation Not Sufficient for Lok Adalat Proceedings  ||  Delhi HC: Govt Created 'Utter Chaos' in OBC Reservation Rules Through Conflicting Notifications  ||  Calcutta HC: Acceptance of Rent After Quit Notice Doesn't Waive Tenancy Termination  ||  Delhi HC Flags EFI Selection Criteria Breach in Asian Games Dressage Team, Declines to Interfere    

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