B P MALINI Vs. RAMACHANDRA PESTICIDES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had presented this petition for winding up of respondent No. 1-company. Briefly stated, it is their contention that they were supplying certain H. DP. E. containers of four sizes to the first respondent-company. It is their case that as per supply made, vide Invoice No. 206 and D. C. Nos. 136 and 137, dated October 28, 1995, an amount of Rs. 85,712. 80 was payable to them. The petitioner's contend that the containers were lifted after proper verification by the respondent-company's staff and transported in their own vehicle on October 28, 1995. Thereafter, there is a long description of what has happened and the petitioner's grievance is that the payment against the consignment was not made despite repeated reminders. According to them, on February 24, 1996, the company sent them a letter, inter alia, stating that there was some defect in the goods and that they have refuted this position by their letter dated March 2, 1996. According to the petitioner, there was also an earlier due of Rs. 10,000 in respect of some supply made on June 12, 1995. Their contention is that this amount was settled by cheque dated april 29, 1997, which was almost two years after the amount was due and they further contend that after repeated reminders, in respect of the payment for the consignment delivered on october 28, 1995, the respondents issued a cheque for Rs. 10,000 on September 25, 1997, towards part payment. This cheque was dishonoured with the bank endorsement stating "insufficient funds". According to the petitioner, they sent a statutory notice dated September 30, 1997, to the respondents to which they gave what the petitioner describes as "a very strange" reply dated October 7, 1997. The two relevant paragraphs of the reply are reproduced below because both the learned advocates have had something to say with regard to the contents of this reply :

(2.) THEREAFTER, the petitioners have presented this petition on November 27, 1997, praying for an order of winding up. Notice was issued to the respondents on January 9, 1998, and the respondents have filed their objections. The contention taken up in defence is briefly that the respondents manufacture and market certain pesticides and it is their case that the containers supplied by the respondents were defective and according to them, they have stated so in their letter to the petitioners dated February 24, 1996, as also in their reply to the notice dated October 7, 1997. In sum and substance, what is contended is that since the goods were defective, the respondents are not liable to pay the amount that is demanded from them and they contend that the petitioners ought to have taken the goods back and that consequently, there is no liability whatsoever that is outstanding from them.

(3.) I have heard the learned advocates and after considering their respective submissions and the contentions raised, I record the finding that there neither is a valid nor a convincing defence in this case and that there is sufficient ground to admit the petition. Normally, a court admitting such a petition would have simultaneously issued notice for the advertisement which is something that follows in normal course. It is, however, within the discretion of the court to defer further a step and I exercised that discretion in favour of the respondents in order to test their bona fides. The respondents carried the matter in appeal and the appeal being unsuccessful, the matter has come back to this court for further orders. Mr. Raghavan, learned counsel representing the respondents submitted that even at this stage, he is entitled to convince the court that not there only are no further steps necessary but that the petition should be dismissed and in keeping with his submission, I have heard learned counsel on both sides at considerable length.