SHREE VINAYAK IRON WORKS Vs. FLOWMORE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 434 (1) (a) and Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent Company.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that in compliance of certain orders placed by the respondent, the petitioner delivered goods at the site of Ganga Pollution Control Unit, UP Jal Nigam, Mahawapati Naini at Allahbad. Six invoices were raised from 21.06.2012 to 04.08.2012 for Rs.58,44,954.96/-. It is the contention of the petitioner that a balance of Rs.14,46,113.22/- remains unpaid. As the amount remained unpaid, a statutory notice was sent on 205.2015. No reply was received and hence, the present winding up petition.

(3.) The respondent have entered appearance and have filed their reply. It is the contention of the respondent that U.P. Jal Nigam had entered into a contract for supply of these pipes with Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. The said Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. sub-contracted the contract to Krushi Infras India Pvt. Ltd. who further sub-contracted it to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent placed the present purchase orders on the petitioner. The delivery of the material took place at the site of U.P.Jal Nigam. The initial materials that were delivered were accepted by U.P. Jal Nigam and payments for the same had been released to the petitioner. Subsequent materials that were supplied, which is the subject matter of the dispute of the present winding up petition, were rejected by U.P. Jal Nigam and the petitioner was told to lift the material. Reliance is placed on various e-mails including e-mails dated 06.04.2013, 204.2013 and 28.06.2013 onwards. Reliance is also placed on Section 43 of the Sale of Goods Act to contend that once the goods had been rejected it was the duty of the petitioner to lift the goods. It is pleaded that despite several communications to the petitioner to lift the goods from the site, no steps were taken. Subsequently, as the site was closed, the goods appear to have been lost on account of inaction on the part of the petitioner. Hence, it is pleaded that the winding up petition does not lie.