9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The facts alleged are the petitioner is engaged in the projects for construction. The petitioner had executed various prominent construction projects and had long dealings with the chairman-cum -managing director of the respondent-company. It had constructed the building of Piccadily Cinema of the Piccadily group of companies etc. The petitioner was granted the contract for construction of a sugar mill building at Patran, District Patiala. The petitioner raised the construction after arranging for the material and the respondent-company was to pay periodical submissions of running bills. The petitioner completed the construction of the building as per the drawings and plans submitted by the respondent-company. In all, the petitioners submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s process, the amount claimed is denied. 4. The position of law as to when a winding up order can be passed is not the subject matter of any controversy. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries (P.) Ltd. [1972] 42 Comp. Cas. 125 holds the place of pride in this regard wherein the principles of law were enunciated and it was held as under : "Where the debt is undisputed the court will not act upon a defence that the company has the ability to pay the debt but the company chooses not to pay that particular debt [See A Company, In re [1894] 94 SJ 369; [1894] 2 Ch. 349 (Ch. D.)]. Where, however, there is no doubt that the company owes the creditor a debt entitling him to a windi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company cannot be permitted to be utilised merely as a pressure tactic on the company or as a means for the recovery of debts due from it. In other words, the Court has to see if the defence is bona fide or not. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, as mentioned above, the main dispute is pertaining to two bills dated 9-12-1994 and 18-12-1994. Annexure P1 is the statement of bills submitted and checked/passed pertaining to the petitioner and read as under : Bill No. Date Bill submitted amount (Rs. p.) Bill checked/ passed amount (Rs. p.) Security deducted (Rs. p.) Net payable (Rs. p.) 1. 11-4-94 9,23,181.60 8,81,598.00 44,080.00 8,37,518.00 2. 3-5-94 1,48,572.00 1,47,773.00 7,389.00 1,40,384.00 3. 9-6-94 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g you. DA/Bill in duplicate.(Sd.)..................... Partner, For United Construction Co." Since the position in case of annexure P-13 is identical, reference need not be made regarding the same. A perusal of both annexures P-11 and P-13 reveals that they are simply covering letters but no bills are attached therewith. The petitioner is fighting shy of appending the bills to show that the amount is due. In addition to that, it refers to some road work while the construction for which the amount claimed is some sugar factory at Patran. Certain other salient facts pertaining to the bills also cannot be ignored. In all other bills, telephone numbers have been scored and new telephone numbers have been mentioned. In both the bills which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
