P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved