JAYANTH PHARMA CHEM Vs. KEKULE PHARMA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s.Jayanth Pharma Chem, Hyderabad, a registered partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner, Smt.Rambathri Hema, filed this petition under Sections 433(e) & (f), 434(1)(a) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1956') r/w Rule 95 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to wind up M/s.Kekule Pharma Ltd., Hyderabad, the respondent company.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner firm that the respondent company entered into a trade contract with it under letter dated 08.04.2010, whereby it agreed to pay 1% on its net turnover (excluding taxes, duties, etc.) towards charges for the services rendered by it to the company. These services allegedly pertained to dealing with trade, import/export of pharmaceutical intermediaries, chemicals and allied products/services. The petitioner firm claims that, pursuant to the letter dated 08.04.2010, it had provided services to the respondent company by procuring raw-materials and selling the products of the company. These services were said to have been provided till 31.03.2011. The respondent company, by letter dated 09.07.2011, terminated the service contract with effect from 01.04.2011. According to the petitioner firm, the letter dated 09.07.2011 demonstrates that the respondent company admitted its liability to pay service charges to it at the rate of 1% on the net turnover from April, 2010 to March, 2011. The petitioner firm alleges that the net turnover of the respondent company for the financial year 2010-11 was Rs.48,24,56,839/- and its servicing charges, at the rate of 1% thereof, came to Rs.48,24,568/-. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.17,94,000/- was said to have been paid by the respondent company. As per the statement of account produced by the petitioner firm, the respondent company was still due and liable to pay it a sum of Rs.23,11,990.50 ps. as on 31.03.2011, with interest thereon. The petitioner firm issued statutory notice dated 05.12.2011 under Section 434 of the Act of 1956 calling upon the respondent company to pay the said sum within three weeks.

(3.) Having received the said notice, the respondent company replied under letter dated 18.01.2012 with a counter claim that the petitioner firm was due and liable to pay it the sum of money specified therein. As the respondent company did not pay the amount claimed by it, the petitioner firm filed the present petition seeking its winding up, alleging that it was unable to pay its debts.