C R CHANDRA Vs. TIRUPATI COTTON MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up the respondent-company on the ground that it is unable to pay the petitioner's debt. The respondent-company raises the dispute about the truth of the debt itself. The petitioner claims to have advanced a sum of Rs. 24, 000 on June 4, 1967, to the company at the time when the management of the company was in the hands of one Venkatasubbiah, who is the brother of the petitioner. The company admits the loan which is evidenced by the receipt, exhibit D-1. But the case of the company is that the records of the company show that the amount was advanced not by the petitioner but by one Sri Chandra, the petitioner being Mrs. Chandra. The further case of the company is that the amount due to the Said Sri Chandra has been discharged by delivery of bales of blankets. The fact is borne out by the gate pass, exhibit D-2, which was issued in the name of Sri Chandra. Venkatasubbiah, petitioner's brother, wrote the letter, exhibit D-3 (a), on June 15, 1967, to the managing director of the respondent-company stating that the bales of blankets had been delivered to Sri Chandra against the advance of Rs. 24, 000 and that the same delivery had been effected under gate pass, exhibit D-2.

(2.) THE other documents of the company, namely, the voucher, exhibit D-4, and the invoice, exhibit D-5, all stated the name of Sri C. R. Chandra. In the covering letter, exhibit D-6(a), written by Venkatasubbiah, the petitioner's brother, sent along with exhibit D-6 addressed to the respondent-company, it is stated that he thereby confirmed having received the amount specified therein towards the balance due from the mills to Sri C. R. Chandra.Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties as to whether the amount was due to Sir C. R. Chandra or Smt. Chandra. Venkatasubbiah began to say that after left the services of the respondent-company the amount was due to Smt. Chandra. THE respondent-company repudiated this claim and notice passed between the parties. Thus, it is seen that no document of the company of which Venkatasubbiah was responsible show that the amount was due to the present petitioner. On the other hand, all the documents, to which he was a party, show that the creditor was Sri C. R. Chandra. It is unnecessary to go into the question whether the bales delivered to a carrier by name M. S. M. Lorry Service was taken back by the respondent-company as stated by the petitioner or had been delivered over to Sir C. R. Chandra in full settlement of the claim of Sir C. R. Chandra as contended by the respondent-company. Suffice it to note that the respondent-company has raised a dispute which is undoubtedly bona fide as would be seen from the documents of the company. As pointed out by the supreme Court in Amalgamated Commercial Traders P. Ltd. v. Krishnaswami, the dispute being bona fide as to the truth of the debt, this is not the forum for adjudication upon the truth of the debt, and the petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. (Vide also Palmer's Company Precedent, 1960 edition, volume 2, page 27). THE petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.