9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the respondent to pay interest on the value of goods supplied. 2. Liability of the respondent-company to be wound up for inability to pay the amount. Summary of Judgment: Issue No. 1: Liability to Pay Interest The petitioner sought to wind up the respondent company for failing to pay Rs. 4,16,239, including interest and bank charges. The respondent contended that only Rs. 1,10,620 was due, which was paid on November 4, 1994, and denied any stipulation for interest payment. The court examined whether the liability to pay interest was bona fide, ascertained, and undisputed. The petitioner relied on a sale contract (Exhibit A-3) stipulating 2% per month interest on overdue bills. However, the respondent argued that this contract was neither signed nor received by them and was not mentioned in the first legal notice (Exhibit A-12). The court noted discrepancies in the dates on Exhibit A-3 and the absence of interest stipulation in other documents (Exhibits A-2, A-7, A-8, A-9). The court referred to Section 209 of the Companies Act, emphasizing the need for proper books of account. The petitioner failed to produce its books, leading to an inference that interest was not charged to the respondent's account. The court concluded that the parties had not stipulated for interest on overdue bills. The petitioner also invoked Section 61(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act for interest as damages, but the court held that this section applies to civil suits for recovery of money, not winding-up proceedings. The court distinguished this case from precedents where interest was awarded in winding-up petitions, emphasizing that winding-up is not an alternative remedy for debt recovery. Issue No. 2: Liability to be Wound Up Even assuming entitlement to interest, the petitioner's claim was inconsistent. Different amounts were claimed in various documents (Exhibits A-12, A-14). The petitioner admitted discrepancies in the dates of despatch and receipt of documents, failing to justify the interest calculation from May 24, 1991. The court agreed with the respondent that the petitioner's claim was not consistent or definite, negating the winding-up claim. The court also noted a technical defect in the petition's verification, which was not in conformity with Rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. However, this was not the basis for dismissal. The company petition was dismissed with costs.
|
