NIRMALA DEVI SARAP Vs. MAHESHWARY ISPAT LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the company agreed to purchase and the petitioner agreed to sell Betanox-C, Ferospeed, Quenching Oil, Super Inox-2C etc at the agreed rates on the terms and condition that the company would pay the price of the goods immediately and in default the company would pay interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum and further an open, running and continuous account would be maintained by and between the parties. Between 26th October, 2009 and 16th September, 2011 the petitioner sold and supplied goods worth Rs. 5,37,158.92 to the company which were duly accepted by the company without any objection or demur. From time to time, the company paid a sum of Rs. 4,82,565.60 in part payment of the petitioner's dues leaving a sum of Rs. 54,493.32 outstanding. The payments were made between 10th March, 2010 and 7th July, 2012. Upon the company's failure to pay the said outstanding amount the petitioner caused to be served on the company a notice dated 19th November, 2012 under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The company responded by its letter dated 26th December, 2012 contending that the entire materials supplied by the petitioner were rejected due to poor quality of the materials as well as non-suitability of the same. It was further alleged in the said reply that in spite of several telephonic intimations the petitioner failed and neglected to lift the rejected materials from the company's Orissa plant and replace the same with fresh materials and in course of time the rejected materials have been fully wasted. The petitioner's advocate wrote a letter dated 7th September, 2013 denying and disputing the contents of the company's letter dated 26th December, 2012.

(3.) In the aforesaid factual matrix the instant application has been filed. The petitioner contends that the defence sought to be raised by the company is completely sham and bogus. There was never any intimation of any rejection of the goods supplied to the company by the petitioner. The company is deemed to unable to pay its debt to the petitioner and should accordingly be wound up.