2012 (8) TMI 1238 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
- Winding up petition under Section 433 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956
- Dispute over payment for supplied goods
- Allegation of defective goods supplied by the petitioner
- Defenses raised by the respondent company
- Validity of the 'C' Form issued by the State of Maharashtra
- Jurisdiction of the court in a winding up petition

Analysis:

The petitioner sought winding up of the respondent company due to non-payment of Rs. 39,98,754 for supplied goods. The respondent alleged that the goods supplied were defective and not as per the agreed specifications, leading to a dispute. The respondent claimed that the goods were waste material and the petitioner had agreed to lift them but failed to do so. The respondent contended that the 'C' Form issued by the State of Maharashtra was based on the assurance that the defective goods would be removed by the petitioner. The Commission Agent's affidavits supported the respondent's version of events, highlighting the alleged defects in the goods supplied by the petitioner.

The petitioner argued that the liability was clear as goods were supplied and the 'C' Form acknowledged the transaction. Legal precedents were cited to support the petitioner's position that the defense raised by the respondent was a sham to avoid payment. The respondent challenged the validity of the petitioner's affidavit, citing procedural irregularities. The court noted that the 'C' Form was a proof of sale and that the respondent had failed to communicate any defects in the goods supplied to the petitioner. The court found the respondent's defense to be suspect and illusory, akin to a mere afterthought to avoid payment obligations.

The court examined the facts, including the lack of communication regarding defects in the goods supplied and the timing of the 'C' Form issuance. Relying on legal precedents, the court concluded that the respondent owed a debt to the petitioner and had failed to liquidate the demand despite statutory notices. The petition was admitted, with a two-week grace period granted to the respondent to make the payment; failure to comply would result in publication of the petition's citation in designated publications. The court deferred the order for publication pending the respondent's compliance with the payment terms.