SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT LTD Vs. GLOBSYN TECHNOLOGIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') seeking winding up of the respondent company. It is alleged that the respondent is indebted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 10,86,740/- plus interest, which has not been paid by the respondent to the petitioner in spite of the statutory notice served upon the respondent under Section 434 of the Act and, therefore, it be deemed that the respondent is unable to pay the debt.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the respondent company approached the petitioner for display of its various advertisements at Kolkata, Bangalore and Mumbai and contract dated 14.3.2000 was entered into between the parties in this behalf The contract fee was agreed to be Rs. 1,70,000/-per month inclusive of taxes. The contract with regard to Mumbai was renewed on 20.9.2000 for display at Bandra for the period from March 2000 to 31st March, 2001. Under the contract the respondent company was required to make monthly payment on the said displays upon petitioner raising bills in this behalf With regard to Kolkata sites, service contract dated 8.9.2000 was executed between the parties in respect of two hoardings, one at Harish Mukherjee Road, Rabindra Sadan and the other at Gol Park facing Dhakuria Bridge. The fee for the first hoarding was agreed to be Rs. 55,000/- per month inclusive of all taxes, while for the second site it was agreed to 4 be Rs. 25,000/- per month inclusive of all taxes. Here also bills were to be raised on monthly basis. For Bangalore, the respondent had booked six hoardings for display until 31.3.2001 @ Rs. 2,20,000/-per month inclusive of all taxes and service contract dated 8.9.2000 was entered into between the parties. Again the payments were to be made on monthly basis. It is alleged that the petitioner company discharged all its obligations under the aforesaid three contracts and 4 displayed the hoardings of the respondent company at the aforesaid sites in all the three cities. Petitioner company also raised bills in respect of these hoardings. In respect of all these sites total bills, details whereof are given in the petition, amounting to Rs. 14,76,640/- were raised. It is stated that the respondent paid only Rs. 4,00,000/-, thereby leaving balance amount of Rs. 10,76,640/-. The copy of the statement of account is filed as Annexure P-6. Since the payments were not made, statutory notice dated 20.8.2001 was issued, but-even thereafter the respondent company failed to make further payments and this led the petitioner into filing the present petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the liability was acknowledged by the respondent company vide letter dated 10.2.2001 wherein the respondent company had assured to clear the dues in the first week of April 2001 and, therefor, was a clear case of inability to pay the admitted debt. The respondent had filed reply opposing the prayer and the main defence of the respondent company is that there is a dispute about the payments inasmuch as Mumbai hoardings handled by the petitioner were not lit due to power supply problems faced by the petitioner from the railway authorities and, therefore, no amount is due and payable for the Mumbai hoardings; there were disputes about other hoardings as well; and the matter was discussed between the parties and after negotiations it was agreed that the total amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-shall be payable, which had already been paid and, therefore, no further amount was payable. It is also pointed out that the fact that there was a dispute and negotiations were held is admitted by the petitioner in para 14 of the petition itself.