TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Liquidator as Liquidator. 2. The respondent is a private limited company with authorised share capital of Rs. 1,25,000 nominal value being Rs. 10 preferential shares of Rs. 1,25,000 of Rs. 10 each. The total issued, subscribed and paid up capital is Rs. 25,00,000. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was appointed as stockists to deal with agro-chemical products manufactured by the petitioner company in and around Coimbatore District. It is stated that the petitioner company has supplied goods during 31-8-1998 to 22-12-1998 to the respondent company amounting to Rs. 14,87,457.37. The respon- dent stated to have acknowledged the materials supplied by the petitioner and also admitted their liability by letters dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterally and unauthorisedly appropriated substantial portion of the amount towards the alleged due of partnership firm of the petitioner concern, which is totally a different entity. The respondent further stated that they have asked receipt for the entire sum of Rs. 25 lakhs for which there was no reply by the petitioner. After adjusting the amount of Rs. 16,24,566.16, the respondent would have a credit of Rs. 8,75,433.84, which amount is retained for future supply of goods, but the petitioner company has not effected supply, which resulted in heavy loss and damages to the respondent company. It is also stated by the respondent that they are not liable to pay any amount or interest as claimed by the petitioner; on the other hand, the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to seek an order that a company shall be wound up. It confers powers on the Court to pass an order of winding up in appropriate cases. 8. A debt is a sum of money which is payable or will be payable in future by a person of a present obligation. A debt must be a determined or a definite sum of money payable immediately at a future date. Any debt payable to a sister concern cannot be termed as a debt payable to the petitioner company. 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent has sent a letter dated 15-5-1999 calling upon the petitioner company to credit the entire sum of Rs. 25,00,000 in their account and also pointed out that a sum of Rs. 13,66,195 was adjusted to the account of Yenefel Agro Corporation. Indeed, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be made. Followed Elmeh India v. Hi-sound Corder P. Ltd. [1995] 83 Comp. Cas. 135 (Mad.). Hence, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that statutory notice was not replied and several letters addressed by the respondent seeking extension of time not sufficient to seek the remedy of winding up. 12. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that this Court, while ordering publication found that prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner that the respondent is unable to pay its admitted liability, which was not appealed, hence the said finding reached a finality. The said argument is not sustainable. The finding, if any means that the case that has proceeded upon sufficient proof to that stage only f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
