Supreme Court: Air Force Group Insurance Society qualifies as ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Anganwadi Workers With Degrees Are Eligible For The 29% Quota For Supervisors in Kerala  ||  SC: Giving Accused the Option of Search Before a Police Officer Breaches Section 50 of the NDPS Act  ||  Gujarat HC: Person is Entitled to Compensation For Injury or Death Within Railway Station Premises  ||  Delhi HC: PMLA Can Apply Even if the Scheduled Offence Occurred Before the Law Came Into Force  ||  J&K&L HC: Accused Can Admit Evidence Recorded under Section 299 Crpc After Appearing in Court  ||  J&K&L HC: District Judge Serving as Reference Court under Land Acquisition Act Acts as a Civil Court  ||  Del HC: Subsequent Bail Pleas From Same FIR Should Usually Go Before the Judge Who Denied the First  ||  J&K&L HC: Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Despite Statutory Status, is Not a ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation    

Corinthian Mining Pty Ltd vs. Lloyd George Mining Pty Ltd - (26 Jul 2023)

Company served with a statutory demand may apply to the court for an order setting it aside within 21 days after its service

Civil

The Plaintiff, Corinthian Mining Pty Ltd (Corinthian), is seeking to set aside the Defendant's statutory demand for payment of a non-judgment debt in the sum of $93,605 pursuant to Section 459G of the Corporations Act, 2001. Alternatively, the plaintiff seeks to vary the statutory demand by reducing the sum by $17,100.

Section 459E of the Act contains a statutory regime by which a creditor may serve a statutory demand on a company in respect of a debt or debts which are due and payable, provided the debts meet at least the statutory minimum amount. Pursuant to Section 459G of the Act, a company served with a statutory demand may apply to the court for an order setting it aside. The application must be made within 21 days after the statutory demand was served.

Present Court is not satisfied that the incorrect party issued the statutory demand. The Plaintiff has not established that a genuine dispute exists regarding the existence of the debt on this basis. However, there is a genuine dispute about the amount stated in the demand confined to the difference between the rate Mr. Wemys stated he was prepared to pay and the rate at which he was invoiced. In the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 459H(4), the statutory demand will be varied by the sum of $17,100 which makes the statutory demand one for $76,505.

Tags : DEBT   DEMAND   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved