R.P.G. TRANMISSIONS LTD. Vs. SITARAM CHAUDAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') against order dated 04.05.2007 passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No. 4/2003 directing advertisement of winding up petition in accordance with Rule 99 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules').

(2.) Mr. P.S. Nair, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. v. North India Petrochemicals Ltd. and another [ : 1994 (3) SCC 348] and submitted that the machinery for winding up can not be allowed to be utilized as a means for realizing debts due from a company which is bonafide disputed by the company. He submitted that since in the present case the Appellant company had bonafide disputed the supply of the material during 1987 -88 worth Rs. 3,44,160/ - and the rate difference of Rs. 1,05,600/ -, the machinery for winding up cannot be permitted to be used by the Respondent to recover the said two amounts of Rs. 3,44,160/ - and Rs. 1,05,600/ -.

(3.) But we also do not accept the submission of Mr. Nair that the Appellant company has bonafide disputed the dues as claimed by the Respondent. The Appellant company has as yet not disputed the claim of the Respondent to Rs. 3,44,160/ - towards the material supplied by the Respondent to the Appellant company during 1987 -88 or Rs. 52,800/ - claimed by the Respondent towards rate difference. This is because the Appellant company has not yet intimated the Respondent that it is not liable to pay the said sum of Rs. 3,44,160/ - towards the materials supplied during 1987 -88 or that it is not liable to pay a sum of Rs. 52,800/ - towards rate difference as claimed by the Respondent. All that it stated in the reconciliation statement as on 03.11.2002 found by the learned Company Judge to have been issued by the Appellant company is that if on verification from the stores record of the Appellant company it is found that the materials have been supplied during 1987 -88 by the Respondent, it will be liable for Rs. 3,44,160/ - and similarly if on consideration of rate difference, the rate difference is approved by the purchase department of the Appellant company, then the Appellant company would pay the rate difference of Rs. 52,800/ - to the Respondent. But, as we have held already, until the materials said to have been supplied by the Respondent during 1987 -88 are verified and the rate difference approved by the purchase department of the Appellant company, the Appellant company cannot be said to be owing debts of Rs. 3,44,160/ - and Rs. 52,800/ - to the Respondent.