SC: Bribe Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt without Proof of Demand under PC Act  ||  SC: Cut Power, Water to Bulk Waste Generators Violating Solid Waste Rules  ||  SC: RPF Employee Who Conceals Criminal Case Can be Discharged at Any Stage  ||  SC: Police can Register FIR Despite Magistrate Rejecting S.156(3) CrPC Application  ||  SC: Criminal Acquittal Alone Cannot Prove Absence of Negligence in Accident Claims  ||  SC: Referral Fees Earned By Auto Dealers for Bank, Insurance Promotion Taxable as Service Tax  ||  Supreme Court Revisits the definition of “Industry”: 9-Judge Bench Reformulates the 1978 Triple Test  ||  Delhi HC: Exam Integrity is a Shared Duty of Candidates and Authorities  ||  Delhi High Court: POCSO Allows Child Witness Cross-Examination but Bars Aggressive Questioning  ||  Kerala HC: Christian Women May File Divorce Pleas Where They Reside    

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