UTTAM INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING LTD. Vs. BASAVESHWAR SUGARS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, M/s. Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd., has filed the present petition for winding up of M/s. Shree Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd., under Sections 433 (e) and (f), 434(1)(a) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules, 1956.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that both the petitioner-Company and the respondent-Company (henceforth to be referred to as merely "the Petitioner" and "the respondent", for short) are registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in the business of designing, procuring, manufacturing, supplying/selling the plant and machinery, and equipments required for the construction of a sugar plant. According to the petitioner, on 5.5.2011, the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement for supply of sugar mill house machinery and equipments required by the respondent for their sugar plant situated in Karjol village, Bijapur District. According to the said agreement, the petitioner was required to supply machinery, and equipment worth Rs. 25.70 Crores. Further, according to the petitioner, it has supplied the machinery and equipment worth Rs. 12,43,01,035.00. However, according to the respondent, the petitioner has supplied machinery and equipment worth merely Rs. 11.20 Crores.

(3.) Further, during the course of supply of machinery, and equipment, the respondent defaulted in paying the amount due to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on 5.2012, the officials of the petitioner personally visited the Corporate office of the respondent with regard to the non-payment of the due amount. The respondent assured the petitioner that it will make the payment of the amount due. However, despite the said assurance, the respondent failed to do so. Therefore, by e-mail dated 19.5.2012, the petitioner reminded the respondent about its commitment. The respondent assured the petitioner that by next week they will release Rs. 3 Crores to the petitioner. Similarly, on 24.7.2012, the respondent again assured the petitioner of its intention to pay the amount due.