9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition for winding up under Companies Act - Dispute over payment for electrical works and consultancy services. Analysis: The petitioner, a sole proprietorship, filed a petition seeking winding up of the respondent-company for non-payment of dues related to electrical works and consultancy services provided at the factory premises. The petitioner claimed to have completed the work as per the agreement and raised 18 bills totaling Rs. 5,22,122.68, out of which only Rs. 3,84,834 was paid, leaving a balance of Rs. 1,28,194.68. Additionally, Rs. 75,800 was claimed for consultancy services. Despite reminders and a notice, the respondent failed to make the payment, leading to the petition being filed. The respondent's defense included a vague denial, stating the claim was time-barred and alleging overpayment to the petitioner. However, the court found that the claim was within the limitation period, as payments were made in 1994-1995, and the last payment was in October 1994, with TDS deducted thereafter. Regarding the merits of the case, discrepancies arose over the number of bills submitted, with the petitioner claiming 18 bills and the respondent stating 17. The respondent alleged liquidated damages of Rs. 1,01,350, but failed to provide justification or documentation for this claim. The court noted the lack of evidence to support the deduction of liquidated damages and emphasized the obligation of the company to maintain proper accounts, which was not fulfilled. The court also highlighted a certificate issued by the respondent in February 1995, praising the quality of work done by the petitioner, which contradicted the respondent's claims of overpayment and disputed liabilities. The court emphasized that the defense raised by the respondent must be bona fide and plausible in a winding up petition. In this case, the court found the respondent's defense lacking in genuineness and justification. Despite assurances from the respondent's representative to settle the matter, no further action was taken, leading the court to admit the petition for winding up the respondent-company. The court ordered the publication of the admission notice in specified publications and set the next hearing date for further proceedings. The judgment also noted the existence of two other winding up petitions against the respondent, indicating a pattern of non-payment and legal action by creditors.
|
