9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Winding up petition for inability to pay debts, disputed balance price of goods sold and delivered, rejection of goods, pending suit for damages, defense raised by the company, mala fide defense, statutory notice non-compliance. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a winding-up petition filed by a creditor against a company for failure to pay its debts. The creditor claimed a balance price of goods sold and delivered. The company acknowledged receiving goods worth Rs. 24,09,697 but only paid Rs. 20,09,108.70, leaving a balance of Rs. 4,00,598.30. Despite a promise to pay, the company failed to settle the dues, leading to the petition. The company alleged that some goods were defective and rejected them, initiating a separate suit for damages amounting to Rs. 9,49,712. The company's defense included disputing the quality of goods and asserting that the promise to pay was a routine letter sent to all creditors, aiming to dismiss the application with costs. The court analyzed the company's defense and found it lacking merit. The court highlighted inconsistencies in the company's claims regarding the rejection of goods and subsequent consumption. The court noted that the company's varying positions contradicted each other, casting doubt on the credibility of its defense. The court emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the company's allegations, including an alleged assurance regarding payment for defective goods upon consumption. The court dismissed the company's attempt to explain away a documented promise to pay as a routine letter, considering it a deceptive tactic. Ultimately, the court concluded that the company's defense was mala fide, with no justifiable cause for non-payment of the outstanding balance. As a result, the court held the company liable to pay the balance sum of Rs. 4,00,598.30 along with 14% interest per annum from the respective bill dates until payment, in accordance with the Sale of Goods Act. Additionally, the company was ordered to cover the costs of the application. Due to the company's failure to pay despite a statutory notice, it was deemed unable to settle its debts, leading to the admission of the winding-up petition. The petitioning creditor was directed to advertise the petition as per the specified timeline, with publication in the Official Gazette waived.
|
