S. GOPINATH Vs. DAVANAM CONSTRUCTIONS (P.) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner claims that being from the Mudaliar community, he had special connections with the people of his community, owning properties in Bangalore, and therefore, he had used this special circumstance to identify landlords and had 3 procured prime properties on lease for the benefit of the present respondent and had entered into an agreement in this regard, whereby the petitioner was entitled to a fixed amount of commission in respect of a particular property which was to be leased by M/s. Rao Bahadur B.P. Annaswamy Mudaliar C.I.E's Public Charities, and that the petitioner was to be paid a sum of RS. 3,88,00,000.00 for his efforts in bringing the parties together. In this regard, an agreement had been entered into, which is produced at Annexure-"B" dated 17.12.2007 and it is further claimed that pursuant to the agreement the lease transaction having taken place, the petitioner was paid certain amounts which have been endorsed on the last page of the agreement, by the respondent. However, since the balance amount was not paid, and on continuous demands when the same was not paid, the petitioner had issued a notice under Sections 434 and 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 and since there was no compliance with the demand, the present petition is filed. It is also claimed that the respondent had paid certain amounts after the notice had been served. However, further demand in respect of the balance amount having not been complied with, the present petition is filed.

(3.) The respondent has entered appearance through counsel and has filed Statement of objections to vehemently deny the petition averments. The respondent has produced a copy which is claimed to be the very same agreement and it is contended that the petitioner has cleverly fabricated two sets of documents under which he seeks to claim these amounts from the respondent. It is claimed that there was a fixed amount of RS. 1,00,00,000.00 agreed to be paid by the respondent, but on the other hand the respondent has paid RS. 1,00,71,000.00 to the petitioner. However, the bona fides of the petitioner is seriously questioned and it is stated that there is no admitted claim and hence, the petitioner is hard put to urge a case for winding up of the respondent - Company, which carries a nationwide repute for its services, and the petition ought to be dismissed.