DURGA PUR PROJECT LTD Vs. VISA STEEL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner founds its claim for winding up the company on the company's failure to pay in respect of some 2000 MT of coal supplied to it. The petition is crisp and is based on a handful of documents leading up to the pithy statutory notice of May 3,2005. The petitioner suggests that in the many pages expended by the company in response to the statutory notice, it has spun a web of confusion that should take little time for a Court to discern.

(2.) THE petitioner asserts that the two other transactions that the company has copiously referred to in its reply to the statutory notice and the alleged fraud on the petitioner's part that makes up the better part of the verbose affidavit, are but part of a laboured shield to cloak its insolvency. According to the petitioner, the two other transactions are unconnected, have arbitration agreements covering the disputes relating thereto and should not be mixed up to permit dilution of the relevant claim of about Rs. 2 crore.

(3.) OF the three transactions entered into between the parties, there was the first for supply of about 66000 MT of coal of Australian origin by the petitioner to the company. The second transaction related to the handling of coal at the various ports of discharge and the transportation thereof to the company's sites. The third, and the one in which the present claim arises, relates to supply of coal effected by the petitioner to the company in the year 2004. The petitioner says that there is no doubt as to the quantity of coal supplied and relies on the three bills for 877 MT, 707 MT and 468 MT of coal. The petitioner suggests that the disputes sought to be raised in respect of other two transactions are irrelevant and the company cannot be heard to deny this claim on the basis of its fanciful demand for damages in respect of the other transactions.