9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Limitation period for filing the winding-up petition. 2. Privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent company. 3. Dispute regarding the quality of machinery supplied and payment obligations. Limitation Period: The petitioner filed a winding-up petition under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking payment for machinery supplied. The respondent argued that the claim was time-barred, as the petition was filed in 1984 for an order placed in 1980. The court noted that the petition was defective initially and refiled in 1984, well beyond the limitation period. Referring to a judgment by Anand J., the court highlighted that even if the limitation period had not expired at the time of filing but expired by the hearing, the petition could be dismissed. Despite a request to amend the petition, the court found the claim time-barred and deserving of dismissal. Privity of Contract: The respondent contested the petition on grounds of lack of privity of contract, stating that the order for machinery was placed by the National Small Scale Industries Corporation (NSIC) on behalf of the respondent, not directly by the respondent. NSIC claimed to have acted at the request of the respondent company. The court observed that the petitioner was unaware of the arrangements between the respondent and NSIC, dealing with NSIC on a principal-to-principal basis. The court found the allegation that the respondent placed the order incorrect, with no evidence to establish the respondent's involvement. Disputes regarding liability, joint venture, and breach of contract terms further complicated the matter. The court concluded that there was a genuine dispute over liability, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Quality Dispute and Payment Obligations: Both parties argued over the quality of the supplied machinery and payment obligations. The respondent claimed the machinery was damaged in transit and that the petitioner breached contract terms. The petitioner denied these claims. The court noted the absence of clear facts establishing the petitioner's unequivocal entitlement to the full payment from the respondent. With conflicting claims and no definitive evidence supporting the petitioner's position, the court deemed it a case of substantial dispute over payment liability. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition without awarding costs. ---
|
