2015 (3) TMI 414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ner is before this Court seeking that an order of winding up be passed against the respondent-company. 2. The petitioner and the respondent have entered into a contract whereunder the work of construction of the sewage disposal system was entrusted to the petitioner under the work order dated 06.03.2007. The cost of the project was in a sum of Rs. 85,46,750.61 which on erection would amount to a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent No.2 has also referred to the statutory notice dated 04.05.2011. The reply dated 05.07.2011 is also referred to indicate that the amount due and payable at Rs. 34,83,215/- has not been disputed by the respondent. In that view, it is contended that the amount is due and payable, the same has also been admitted and as such, it would have to be deemed that the respondents are unable to pay their .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o sought for restraint order against the respondent herein who is defendant No.8 therein not to disburse the amount to defendant No.1 who is the petitioner herein. The said order has been granted by the DRT on 17.02.2012. 5. In that light, it is pointed out that though the said amount is due, they are not in a position to discharge the same to the petitioner and at the same time, the petitioner h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... despite the amount being admitted as due and payable to the petitioner. 7. In this regard, the very minutes of the meeting referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on a close perusal would indicate that though the said amount of Rs. 34,83,215/- was admitted as the net amount due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner, in the very meeting it is recorded that the respondents .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... her hand, they have been prevented in law against paying the said amount to the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer as made in the petition to wind up the respondent-company would not be maintainable in the instant petition and the petitioner would have to resort to appropriate remedies in accordance with law for adjustment of the said amount by seeking payment of the same to the Bank of Maharashtra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X