Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

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