2000 (5) TMI 966 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Petition for winding up under Companies Act, 1956 due to non-payment for heavy melting scrap; Dispute over payment between petitioner and respondent; Defence raised by respondent regarding payment made to another party; Application of legal principles for admission of winding up petition.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a petition for winding up under the Companies Act, 1956, filed by the petitioner against the respondent company for non-payment of heavy melting scrap. The petitioner imported the scrap from Mauritius through a supplier and entered into High Seas Sale Contracts with the respondent for purchase. The respondent allegedly owes Rs. 11,49,050 to the petitioner for the scrap, with interest claimed at 18% per annum. The respondent contested the petition, claiming payment had been made through a third party, Surinder Nanda of Nanda Bros. The respondent argued that Nanda Bros. approached them for the supply of scrap and that most of the payment had been made, with only a balance due to Nanda Bros. The respondent stated they were not aware of the transaction details between the petitioner and Nanda Bros.

The judgment refers to the legal principle established by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries (P.) Ltd., emphasizing that a winding up petition should only be admitted if the debt is undisputed, and the defense raised by the company is not likely to succeed. The court highlighted the importance of good faith and substantial defense in such cases. The respondent provided evidence of payment made to Nanda Bros. through demand drafts and letters, indicating that the payment was for the goods supplied by the petitioner. The court noted that the defense raised by the respondent regarding payment to another party should be investigated further before outright rejection.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, stating that without expressing any opinion on the merits, the defense raised by the respondent could not be rejected outright at that stage. The court found that the respondent's claim of making payment to another party created a dispute that needed further investigation. The judgment clarified that the dismissal of the petition should not be taken as an expression of opinion on the matter's merits, suggesting that the petitioner could pursue a civil suit if desired.