9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petitioner's claim for payment of goods supplied and respondent's counterclaim for damages due to non-supply of goods. Analysis: The petitioner, a private limited company, filed a petition against the respondent, another company, claiming payment for supplying marble. The petitioner alleged that the respondent placed orders for 25000 sq. ft. of marble initially and later for an additional 30000 sq. ft. at Rs. 110 per sq. ft. The petitioner supplied marble but not the total quantity ordered. The respondent contended that due to the petitioner's failure to supply the agreed quantity, they suffered a loss of Rs. 41,07,000, had to purchase goods at a higher rate, and faced project delays. The respondent filed a civil suit for recovery. The court noted that the petitioner admitted to the agreement to supply 55000 sq. ft. of marble at Rs. 110 per sq. ft. but only supplied 38000 sq. ft. The respondent's claim of damages was found to be a reasonable dispute, not mala fide, as the respondent had to purchase goods at a higher rate due to the petitioner's non-supply. The court emphasized that it was not required to determine the exact damages suffered by the respondent but to assess the genuineness of the dispute. The court found that the respondent's suit was not vexatious and that both parties attempted negotiation before resorting to legal action. The respondent had filed a civil suit before the winding-up petition, indicating a genuine dispute. The court concluded that there was no admitted debt between the parties and a bona fide dispute existed regarding the debt. Consequently, the winding-up petition under section 433 was rejected. No costs were awarded in the case.
|
