9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Admission of petition for winding up of the company based on non-payment and quality dispute. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the admission of a petition for winding up a company due to non-payment and quality dispute. The respondent filed a petition for winding up the appellant company, which was admitted by the Company Judge after the appellant failed to reply to the statutory notice or provide sufficient cause for not proceeding against the winding up. The appellant raised three grounds of objection: substandard quality of goods supplied, a bona fide dispute over the amount due, and the claim being barred by limitation. The court found that the appellant failed to produce any evidence or material supporting their claims, emphasizing that the liability existing at the petition's filing date continues despite subsequent bar by limitation. The appellant's challenge mainly focused on disputing the quality of goods supplied and the rates charged by the respondent. However, the court noted that the appellant did not provide any substantial evidence or material to support their claims. The appellant's arguments lacked specifics, and the court highlighted the absence of a genuine dispute raised by the appellant regarding the rates or quality of the goods supplied. The judgment further delves into the timeline of events, pointing out that the appellant only raised disputes regarding the quality and rates of the goods after the cheques issued for payment were dishonored. A letter dated 5-3-1994 was cited as the first instance of the appellant raising a dispute, but the court found the contents vague and lacking in specific details regarding the alleged discrepancies in rates and quality. The court emphasized the necessity for the appellant to provide concrete particulars to substantiate their claims of substandard quality and higher rates. Additionally, the judgment addressed the dismissal of a criminal complaint filed by the respondent, noting that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature, leading to the rejection of criminal liability. Ultimately, the court found no grounds for interference in the impugned order admitting the winding-up petition. The appellant's failure to discharge the liability to the respondent, as evidenced by dishonored cheques, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment concluded by dismissing the appeal with costs and allowing the continuation of interim stay for a specified period.
|
