Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2018 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1538 - HC - Companies LawWinding up petition - dues payable to the petitioner - Held that:- The petitioner has placed on record an email dated 22.12.2014 whereby the petitioner has pointed out regarding an outstanding amount of ₹ 1,03,93,398/- to the respondent. The respondent has replied on the same date stating that once the cheques are ready intimation will be sent to the petitioner. Hence, there is no denial of the dues payable to the petitioner. Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an exchange of whatsapp message which was sent on 17.11.2014 where the reply was received on 17.11.2014 stating that the work will be taken care of. Again there is no denial of the dues of the petitioner. No communication or document is sought to be placed on record whereby the respondent in the past had informed the petitioner of its failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the purchase order. There is not even one document place on record to show that the petitioner were informed that they have failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the purchase orders or that the work being performed by them is defective. In fact what the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon is a communication dated 31.07.2014 allegedly written by the respondent regarding some defects. This communication has been attached by the petitioner themselves. This is the solitary communication which shows some defects were there in the work done by the petitioner. Presumably, the work would have been completed by the petitioner as there is no subsequent correspondence. Clearly, the defence raised is not bona fide. Today in the course of submissions that were made by the learned counsel for the respondent, she did not deny that no work has been done by the petitioner. Her plea was that some work had been done by the petitioner and there were some defects in the work that was done. Based on this she pleaded that some amount may be payable to the petitioner but the same is not quantifiable. Much stress was also laid by the respondent on the fact that there are two different amount being claimed by the petitioner, namely, the outstanding amount of ₹ 1,03,93,398/- and another amount claimed as due was ₹ 53,66,278/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner had tried to explain away the said differences stating that as there was delay in clearance of the bills by the respondent, on the request of the respondent, a bill for ₹ 58,66,278/- was raised on a sister concern which was said to have funds to pay dues. It is manifest that some amount does remain payable by the respondent to the petitioner. I admit the present petition. However I defer appointing the OL as the PL till the next date of hearing. In the meantime, the respondent is free to deposit a sum of ₹ 53,66,278/- within four weeks from today with the Registrar General of this Court. If such amount is deposited the petitioner would be free to have the said amount released
|