DABHOLKAR ENTERPRISES Vs. PADMA ALLOYS CASTINGS (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have filed this petition seeking to wind up the Respondent Company on the ground that they are not in a position to pay their debts and that, as, in spite of the statutory notice given under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 , the Respondent Company has not paid the amounts demanded which were due to the petitioners and since the said amount is more than Rs. 500/- the Respondent Company must be deemed to be not in a position to pay their debts.

(2.) The petitioners claim that between the period of 14.8.1990 and 17.11.1990 the Respondent Company was supplied with goods worth Rs. 1,21,640.75 P. under its bills which are enumerated in Exhibit 'A' annexed to the Company Petition. The petitioners further claim that by letters which are at Exhibits 'B' and 'C', the Petitioners demanded the amounts due to them from the Respondent Company. As the Respondent Company did not respond to the said communications, statutory notice dated 3.8.92 as required under Section 434 of the Companies Act was sent to the registered office of the Respondent-Company and to the said notice also the Respondent Company did not reply. The petitioners, therefore, claim that the principal amount outstanding as on Ist December, 1990 due from the Respondent Company is Rs. 1,21,640.50 P. and interest thereon upto the date of the filing of the Petition is Rs. 44,703.00 and therefore the Respondent Company is indebted to the Petitioners to the tune of Rs. 1,66,232.50 P.

(3.) The Respondent Company filed their reply dated 4th January, 1994 denying the claims of the petitioners and they contended that the Respondent Company had by their letter dated 15.11.1990 informed the Petitioners that the material supplied by them was defective and hence the same was required to be replaced. A copy of the said letter dated 15.11.1990 alleged to have been addressed by the Respondent Company to the Petitioners is annexed to the Affidavit in reply as Exhibit 'A'. in the said letter, it was also stated that the representative of the petitioners had visited their factory and had inspected the material lying unused and that he had promised to replace the same but the same was not replaced till the date of the said letter i.e. 15.11.90. The petitioners have filed their Rejoinder affidavit and have denied to have received the letter dated 15.11.90. It also appears that the petitioners had called upon the Respondent Company to give inspection of documents showing that the said letter dated 15.11.90 was received by the petitioners and in spite of that the Respondent Company did not produce any document in support of their contention for inspection of the Petitioners.