Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (11) TMI 943

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g for the respondent. 3. The only point that arises for consideration is whether a prima facie case has been made out to admit and proceed further in his winding up petition? 4. According to the petitioner, the respondent placed orders for wiring and fire fighting system valued at Rs. 3,63,394 and Rs. 3,64,880, respectively and for fire detection system with intelligent signature series and public address system valued at Rs. 15,41,455 (fire fighting system) and Rs. 44,21,250 (public address system) respectively. The work entrusted by the respondent-company was diligently executed by the petitioner to the respondent s full satisfaction. The petitioner has submitted bills till 14-12-1998, for Rs. 14,20,363 for which the respondent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s heavily indebted to many creditors and it is not functioning smoothly. It is just and equitable that the respondent-company should be wound up. Despite notice, the respondent had not made the payments and, therefore, it is clear that the respondent is unable to pay its debts. The respondent has become commercially insolvent and being unable to pay its debts, it is liable to be wound up. 7. The respondent had filed a counter contending that the winding up petition has been filed with ulterior motives and it is an abuse of process of this court. The winding up petition is neither maintainable in law nor on facts. The respondent refuted the liability and further pleaded that at no point of time it had admitted or acknowledged the liabili .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at site as per letter dated 1-11-1999. The statutory notice has been replied suitably contending that no amount is due and it is the petitioner, who is liable to pay a substantial sum to the respondent. 9. The respondent had pointed out various deficiencies in the discharge of the contractual obligations by the petitioner and the claim of the petitioner is refuted. The respondent had also raised a number of disputes with respect to the execution of the contract and had demanded Rs. 17.29 lakhs as a counter-claim against the petitioner. The respondent further submits that the decision of the engineer in terms of the agreement rendered on 18-8-2000, is fatal to the petitioner s claim and the petitioner cannot maintain the winding up petit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the contract by the petitioner, which runs to several pages. 12. Though Mr. John, the learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the deficiencies have been attended to or rectified, it has to be pointed out that no material has been placed before the court in this respect that subsequent to the project engineer s a decision, the defects have been attended to or the deficiencies have been rectified as pointed out by the engineer. 13. The project engineer had ultimately, after inspection and after considering the exchange of correspondence and after personally satisfying himself, and in the circumstances set out in his decision, issued the following directions : "(1) The contractor may be given final notice to complete th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the project engineer in terms of the final notice issued with respect to the balance of work as indicated in his award. The petitioner had not placed any material to show that the petitioner had attended the defects or rectified the defects or cleared the deficiencies or that it had completed the work to the satisfaction of the project engineer. In the absence of such material, this Court has to necessarily accept the stand taken by the respondent-company. This Court holds that there is a bona fide dispute between the parties and the denial of the petitioner s claim is bona fide . Such disputes cannot be decided in the present company petition. 16. Further, no material has been placed before this Court to show that the respondent is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates