9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ( b )The winding up petition arises from a proposed purchase by the petitioner from the respondent of a mechanical bar screen for the Sewge Pumping Station at UEED, Jammu. On 14th December, 1997, the purchase order was placed with the respondent which required Rs. 25,000 to be paid in advance against the purchase order and Rs. 25,000 after 30 days of the order. The balance amount along with taxes was to be paid through the letter of credit of 45 days with certain benefits for pre-payment. Rs. 50,000 was paid to the respondent by the petitioner on 16th January, 1998. The respondent vide its letter dated 20th January, 1998, stated that the equipments will be supplied within March, 1998. Drawings were submitted by the respondent on 21st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt company which led to the filing of the winding up petition. 2. The respondent s case is that the original contract dated 14th December, 1997 was for Jammu and U.P. Jal Nigam and the payment of Rs. 9,75,000 was only for the supply at Jammu. The Screen which was originally deviced for Jammu had to be revised as per the drawings of the respondent and the respondent has always been ready and willing to perform its part of the contract and there was delay on account of the petitioner s own difficulties with the project at Jammu which contract was eventually cancelled by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir due to financial constraints. Since the petitioner was reluctant in performing its part of the contract, such as approval of drawings a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further payment of Rs. 4,25,000 as balance price and compensation and damages of Rs. 4,00,000. Thus according to the respondent there was a bona fide dispute between the parties. 5. In my view, the present case cannot be adjudicated under the winding up jurisdiction of this Court. The notice under section 434 was promptly replied to by the respondent. It is the petitioner s own case that the original date of supply was March, 1998 as per the order dated 14th December, 1997 and the fact narrated above clearly shows that the said contract got novated and the supply period was extended. It is also the petitioner s own case that eventually the original order for Jammu was cancelled by the Government of Jammu Kashmir and the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
