9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed and the delay of one day in filing the accompanying affidavit is condoned. The affidavit is taken on record. CO.PET. 556/2013 1. This petition is filed under Sections 433 (e), (f), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking to wind up the respondent company. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent approached the petitioner to avail transportation services. The petitioner raised various bills and invoices for services provided. Details of the invoices are stated in the petition. It is pleaded that there is a total outstanding of Rs. 5,27,825/- against the respondent. It is pleaded that the respondent failed to pay the necessary dues. It is also pleaded that in view of the delay, the respondent is liable to pay inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) He further submits that the statutory notice was issued by the petitioner on 06.08.2013. By that date, he pleads that the goods had not yet been delivered by the petitioner meaning thereby that the amounts were not due and hence the statutory notice is not valid and cannot be the basis for filing the present winding up petition. 5. I may look at the two documents relied upon by the petitioner to plead that there has been an acknowledgement and acceptance of the dues by the respondent. I may first look at the e-mail written by the petitioner to the respondent on 11.10.2013. As per this e-mail, the petitioner has written to the respondent stating that there is an outstanding of Rs. 5,71,350/- and the work is complete. In the minutes of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. I may deal with another contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. He has pleaded that the winding up petition was filed before the delivery of goods, namely, in September 2013. He submits that the documents now relied upon are of October 2013. I do not know how this argument helps the respondent. The liability of the respondent to pay its dues does not get washed away by this technical argument. A perusal of the file shows that the petition was filed on 22.10.2013 though it is dated 27.09.2013. The transactions have taken place in September 2012 to June 2013. A statutory notice was sent on 06.08.2013. Even if the petition was filed in September 2013, it does not do away with the liability of the respondent. The plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
