9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ems. In July 2011, the petitioner was approached by the respondent-company for supply of the above material, to be used in the manufacture of cables. It is claimed by the petitioner that he had informed the respondent that the renewable plastic granules may not be suitable for the manufacture of cables and allied products and are normally used in the manufacture of plastic mouldings and sheets. Despite this, the respondent-company requested the petitioner to supply the material. From the end of July 2011, the petitioner started supplying the material to the respondent-company. In a ledger account maintained in the name of the respondent-company, the sales were debited and the payments received were credited. The material was delivered at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ledger account was also attached to the legal notice. Despite service of the notice upon the respondent-company, including by e-mail, there was no reply to the same. The petitioner has therefore filed the present company petition for winding up. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the respondent-company could not pay the balance outstanding, it should be wound up under section 433(e). It is pointed out that in order to ward off the payment, the respondent-company filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, District West, Delhi against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs as loss claimed to have been suffered by the respondent-company on account of manufacture of cables by using the material supplied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of bona fide dispute regarding the quality of the material supplied by the petitioner. It is argued that the winding up petition is a counter-blast to the notice sent by the respondent on 7.3.2012 seeking recovery of Rs. 20 lakhs from the petitioner. Attention is drawn to the letter dated 14th October, 2011 written by the respondent to the petitioner on the subject "bad quality of PVC compound supplied" (Annexure R4-Colly). It is submitted that in this letter the respondent-company has drawn the attention of the petitioner that the "PVC Compound--Grey" supplied by the petitioner and received on 9.10.2011 was to be rejected on colour scheme and on quality parameters. The letter also says that the material will be returned to the petitioner w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by it were also defective and were rejected by its customers, which resulted in a loss, a part of which is recoverable from the petitioner even after setting off the amount due to the petitioner. If the goods were defective, it was for the respondent to return the same. The ledger account of the respondent-company maintained by the petitioner shows that on 19.10.2011, goods of the value of Rs. 3,67,200/- were returned by the respondent. The ledger account does not show any other return of the goods. There is no evidence brought on record by the respondent to show that apart from the above, some other goods were also returned. Annexure R-4 (Colly.) does not contain any evidence to show that the goods, allegedly found defective, were return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the person who supplied the material i.e. the petitioner. Moreover, this office memo is dated 03.02.2012 by which time the last of the supplies had been made. This appears to me to be a self-serving record which cannot be given any credibility. The letter dated 03.02.2012 addressed by the respondent to the petitioner on the subject of "poor quality of PVC compound of outer sheathe" acknowledges the fact that the material supplied by the petitioner was "used for our various buyers". It was for the respondent to have inspected the goods properly for defects. Once the goods have been used and the cables supplied to various customers of the respondent, who also admittedly used material supplied by several other suppliers, there should be stric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Areva has cancelled the orders placed on the respondent for certain projects based on the progress of the orders till then and various rejections which took place during the inspections. I am unable to understand how this letter pins down the liability for supplying defective material upon the petitioner. 7. It appears to me that the claim of the respondent that the material supplied by the petitioner other than the material supplied under bill No. 057 dated 08.10.2011, on account of defects therein, had caused huge loss to the respondent, the responsibility for which should be taken by the petitioner, is clearly an afterthought. The contention of the respondent that the legal notice issued by the petitioner was a counter blast to the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
