TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well as in the Delhi Gazette, at least 14 days prior to the next date of hearing. - CO.PET. 640/2016 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2018 - MR. JAYANT NATH J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Nagesh and Ms.Rachna Chilhr, Advs. Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, Dr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi and Mr. D.R. Bagga, Advs. JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition is filed under section 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for winding up of the respondent company. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent approached the petitioner for providing security services at the various sites of the respondent, namely, corporate office at Noida, Uttar Pradesh, etc. in October, 2013. The petitioner started providing security services from November, 2013 at respondent s site at Noida and continued to provide security services till month of December, 2015 and continued to raise invoices on the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent has not denied/disputed any of the bills/invoices raised by the petitioner towards providing the security services but have failed to release the complete bills. It is pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner, the respondent had to suffer on account of constant visits of the labor officer/government officials at the site of the respondent and the respondent had to acknowledge those officials about the exact situations and defaults of the petitioner; ending up in an uneasy situations to the respondent. 6. It is further submitted that on account of default in payment of dues of the workmen's/security guards by the petitioner, they remained frustrated and dissatisfied, resulting in disoriented and dis-motivated work performance at the sites including the site of the respondent. About unsatisfactory services the respondent contacted the petitioner at several occasions but with no responsible response on the part of the petitioner. 7. That on account of filing of cases before the concerned 'Industrial Tribunal' by the workmen's/security guards and being impleaded the respondent as a party to the proceedings; the respondent compelled to stop the disbursement of the payment petitioner towards its services. But the scores between the petitioner and the respondent has been finally settled before the Hon'ble Patiala House Court and the 'Lok Adalat. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denied that the services provided by the petitioner were of the specific standard meeting the specification of the service agreement, in this regard, it is submitted that as the respondent has never availed the services with regard to the said site, therefore, the question of payment towards the petitioner could not arise in any claim made by the petitioner is false and fabricated. 7. From the above reply, it is clear that on one hand in the preliminary submission, the respondent admits that security service was provided by the petitioner with regard to the other factories of the respondent. He has submitted that the petitioner have had been a chronic defaulter in paying the dues/EPF/ESIC of the workmen on account of that the workmen approached the Industrial Tribunal. It also admitted that the respondent availed the services of the petitioner for its establishments and before the concerned Industrial Tribunal, the respondent company had also been made a party to the proceedings. Moreover, due to defaults of the petitioner, the respondent had to suffer on account of constant visits of the labour officer/government officials at the site of the respondent. On account of default ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgement of the Supreme Court in IBA Health (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Info-Drive Systems Sdn.Bhd., (2010) (4) CompLJ 481 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:- 17. The question that arises for consideration is that when there is a substantial dispute as to liability, can a creditor prefer an application for winding-up for discharge of that liability? In such a situation, is there not a duty on the Company Court to examine whether the company has a genuine dispute to the claimed debt? A dispute would be substantial and genuine if it is bona fide and not spurious, speculative, illusory or misconceived. The Company Court, at that stage, is not expected to hold a full trial of the matter. It must decide whether the grounds appear to be substantial. The grounds of dispute, of course, must not consist of some ingenious mask invented to deprive a creditor of a just and honest entitlement and must not be a mere wrangle. It is settled law that if the creditor's debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, the court should dismiss the petition and leave the creditor first to establish his claim in an action, lest there is danger of abuse of winding-up procedure. The Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
