LAWS(GJH)-2015-2-71

CONTIGRAIN INTERNATIONAL Vs. GOKUL REFOILS AND SOLVENT LTD

Decided On February 09, 2015
Contigrain International Appellant
V/S
Gokul Refoils And Solvent Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein has filed this petition praying for an order of winding up of the respondent -Gokul Refoils and Solvent Limited, under Section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner in the name and style of M/s.Contigrane International, is a firm carrying on business of supply chain solution and marketing service/brokerage. The respondent is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that under three different contracts, the petitioner sold the goods being Indian Rapeseed Extraction Meal to a foreign based buyer one M/s.Ramak General Trading LLC, Dubai and that in the said transaction, the petitioner acted as broker. It is the further case of the petitioner that the consignment was shipped on 21st September, 2011 from Kandla Port to Bandarabbas, Iran in a buyer chartered vessel M.V. Azalea on Free on Board (FOB) Terms. The total consignment was covered under four different Bills of Lading. According to the petitioner,the Grain and Feed Trade Association Contract for Shipment for Feedingstuff in Bulk -GAFTA No.100 is applicable and binding to the respondent, stating it stipulates about the term of brokerage and the time frame of its payment. Reliance was placed on condition No.4 of the said GAFTA No.100 dealing with brokerage.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his relationship with the respondent was as broker and the brokerage was payable to the petitioner as per the contract and that the brokerage was automatically payable once the contract was performed and it was over. According to the case of the petitioner, the respondent received the payment under the contract and it had "settled" the contract with the said buyer, resultantly, the said dues of the petitioner towards brokerage commission had become automatically payable. The said payment having been withheld by the respondent company without any good ground, the company was liable to be wound up under Section 433(e) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.