9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gujarat. It appears that a contract for supply of sodium sulphite and sodium bisulphite was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-company. The petitioner claims that it has been maintaining proper books of account and the ledger account of the respondent-company in the regular course of business. The case of the petitioner-company is that there was a total balance of Rs. 32,19,118 as on 31-3-2008. In spite of repeated demands and requests to clear the outstanding dues, the respondent-company has failed to discharge the mid debt. Ultimately, a notice dated 25-3-2008, under section 434 for winding up was given. By the said notice, the respondent-company was asked to clear the outstanding dues failing which the proceedings for winding up shall be initiated. The receipt of the said notice is not disputed. However, no reply was given by the respondent-company. Hence, the present petition for winding up of the respondent-company under the aforestated sections has been filed. 3. In response to the show-cause notice, before admission of the winding up petition, a counter affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the goods supplied by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s concerned and as such the respondent-company made request to the petitioner-company to issue fresh credit notes and the petitioner-company assured the respondent that the renewed credit notes would be issued to it at the proper rates. However, the petitioner-company has deliberately not taken any steps. The amounts shown by the petitioner-company are seriously disputed by the respondent-company. 7. On the basis of the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner-company submits that the respondent company has unilaterally debited Rs. 1,13,401 under various heads. Even after the said debit, still a sum of Rs. 31,05,717 is due. The submission is that even if the said adjustment is allowed, still a sum of Rs. 31,05,717 is the admitted liability of the respondent-company. 8. Considered the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The only defence raised in the present winding up petition is that the liability said to be "admitted liability" is not the "admitted liability" of the respondent-company. Learned counsel for the respondent-company in support of his arguments could refer to only paragraphs 19 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .10." 12. Sri R. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner-company submits that the respondent-company has unilaterally debited the amount from the account, as is evident from the copy of the statement of account filed by the respondent-company. A bare perusal of the said statement of account would show that the following amounts have been debited : Date of debt Description Amount Rs. 5-4-2007 Special discount on supplies under Invoice No. 3/2-4-07 8,000 31-7-2007 Debit Note No. 38 - deduction due to low purity 38,749 31-10-2007 Debit Note No. 91 - deduction due to low purity - Invoice Nos. 46, 74, 78 and 80 66,000 16-11-2007 TDS against bill No. 90 653 Total 1,13,401 13. The aforesaid amount has been debited from the petitioner-company and the balance amount comes to Rs. 31,05,717. It may also be noted that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the other payments. 14. In view of the above, it is clear that the respondent-company has admitted its liability for payment of Rs. 31,05,117. It cannot be said that the respondent-company has any valid defence or the present petition is mala fide one. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial has been placed on record in support of the defence as set out in the counter affidavit to show that any bona fide dispute has been raised by the respondent-company. Repeated opportunities, as detailed above, was granted to the respondent-company to pay the debt. More than six months have passed but the respondent-company has not been able to clear its admitted liability. Looked from any angle and taking the case of the respondent-company on its face value with regard to the payments made by it from time to time including the payments made during the course of pendency of the present proceedings before this court, under the orders of this court, it is evident that the respondent-company has not been able to discharge its admitted liability which as it stands today, comes to Rs. 31,05,717 minus Rs. 14,67,728 (paid during pendency of the present proceedings) = Rs. 16,37,989. In any view of the matter, there is no doubt that the respondent-company owes the petitioner-company of the debt entitling it to a winding up order. 17. This court by order dated 4-8-2008, while granting time to file response on behalf of the respondent-company, directed counsel that while filing counter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
