SUPER FINE MEAT SUPPLIERS Vs. BHARAT HOTELS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner praying for an order of winding - up of this respondent company on the ground that the respondent is indebted to the petitioner and that the respondent has refused and/or neglected to pay the dues of the petitioner in spite of the demand notice served on it.

(2.) The petitioner entered into an agreement on 1.6.1997 with the respondent for supply of mutton to the respondent for a period of 12 months at the agreed rate as mentioned in the agreement. The said agreement was valid from 1.6.1997 to 31.5.1998. At the time of entering into an agreement the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1.25 lacs towards security with the respondent. Clause 2.6 of the said agreement has relevance to the facts of the present case wherein it was stipulated that the respondent acknowledges receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1.25 lacs towards security deposit. It was also stipulated therein that subject to the satisfactory conclusion of the aforesaid agreement, the security deposit shall be refunded to the supplier, namely, the petitioner upon conclusion of the term. The petitioner supplied mutton as agreed upon during the aforesaid period. The petitioner even after expiry of the period of the written agreement continued to supply mutton to the respondent on an oral agreement till finalisation of another agreement. The petitioner, however, claimed payment at an enhanced rate for the supplies made subsequent to 1.6.1998 and also claimed refund of Rs. 1.25 lacs which was deposited by the petitioner with the respondent as security deposit. Since neither payment was made by the respondent at the enhanced rate for mutton supplied for the period after 31.5.1998 nor since refund of the security deposit was made, a statutory demand notice was sent to the respondent which was received by the respondent but no reply to the same was sent. Accordingly the present petition was filed in this Court.

(3.) The respondent has, however, filed a reply to this petition disputing the claim of the petitioner for payment at an enhanced rate for the mutton supplied by the petitioner to the respondent subsequent to the period from 1.6.1998. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the respondent did not agree to pay any enhanced rate for the mutton supplied to the respondent by the petitioner and that the petitioner was obliged to supplied to the respondent by the petitioner and that the petitioner was obliged to supply the mutton at the rate which was agreed upon under the agreement dated 1.6.1997. It is also stated that the payment for the mutton was also made by the respondent to the petitioner which was stated to have been accepted by the petitioner in respect of one bill in full and final settlement of the bill dated 30.6.1998. So far the other two bills are concerned, it is also stated by the Counsel that payment has already been made by the respondent to the petitioner at the old rate during the pendency of the winding-up petition in this Court.