9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition for winding up under Companies Act - Failure to supply LPG cylinders and ancillary items - Refund of payments made by petitioner - Dispute over payments due - Respondent's denial of dealership appointment - Contradictory stand of respondent - Failure to file reply - Admissibility of receipts and bank drafts - Dispute raised by respondent as delaying tactic - Admission of petition. Analysis: The petitioner, a gas agency, filed a petition under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act seeking the winding up of Appenzell Petroleum Products Private Limited for failure to supply LPG cylinders and other items despite payments made. The petitioner claimed to have been appointed as a dealer and made various payments, supported by receipts and bank drafts. The respondent denied the appointment and outstanding payments, alleging the petitioner is not a registered dealer. However, the respondent's defense was struck off due to failure to file a reply, indicating a delaying tactic. The court noted the contradictory stand of the respondent, acknowledging the issuance of cylinders while denying the dealership appointment. The court found the respondent's conduct unsatisfactory, as evidenced by the failure to pay debts due to the petitioner. The court scrutinized the documents provided by the petitioner, including the appointment letter, receipts, and bank drafts, which were not disputed by the respondent as forged. The court highlighted the respondent's failure to address specific allegations and the absence of evidence to counter the petitioner's claims. Notably, ledger accounts maintained by the respondent corroborated the amounts claimed by the petitioner, further weakening the respondent's position. The court concluded that the respondent's dispute was merely an attempt to delay proceedings, lacking substance and intended to avoid payment obligations lawfully due to the petitioner. Consequently, the court admitted the petition for winding up, ordering its publication in designated newspapers for notice to interested parties. The court scheduled the case for further directions, emphasizing the respondent's neglect and inability to settle its debts as the basis for admitting the petition. The judgment highlighted the respondent's failure to provide a valid defense and the petitioner's substantiated claims as grounds for the court's decision to proceed with the winding-up process.
|
