RAMDAS AND CO Vs. KITTI STEELS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Sections 433 (e) and 433 (f) read with Sections 434 (1) and 439 (1) (b) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, (for short "the Act"), for winding up the respondent-company.

(2.) THE admitted facts of the case, in brief, are that in answer to the invitation of tenders for construction of fabrication shed and ancillary building required for the purposes of the respondent-company's factory, the petitioner had given its offer, vide letter dated July 2, 1994. After exchange of letters and negotiations, the contract was finalised on September 28, 1994, and the price of the contract was settled approximately at Rs. 2. 50 crores. The work was completed between the month of December, 1995, and April. 1996.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner-company is that the tenders were called for and accepted as item rate contract. Besides the work at Ghatkesar, where the construction of fabrication shed and ancillary building" was required to be completed, the respondent-company had also entrusted the work at Nacharam project and Somajiguda project described as Integrated Engineers and Rajwant Hotels. 14 running bills were submitted and were duly certified by the project architect and/or owner's representative so far as the work at Ghatkesar site was concerned. The petitioner has also submitted running bills for Nacharam project from May 25, 1995, to December 16, 1995, as also running bills for Somajiguda site from November 15, 1994, to April 4, 1996, duly certified by the authorised persons. The petitioner was entitled to claim Rs. 1,33,67,428 against the work done as per the contract and in addition to that it was entitled to other amounts withheld by the respondent-company against excise, provident fund contributions and value of the materials purchased but not utilised. The petitioner is thus entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1. 07,60,772, totalling Rs. 2,41,28,200. This amount has not been paid by the respondent-company in spite of demands. The amounts deducted under TDS have neither been paid to the income-tax authority nor released by the respondent-company to the petitioner. The respondent-company is heavily indebted to other companies also. In spite of statutory notice, it has not paid the amount and, therefore, the company should be wound up.