ROHIT FERRO TECH LIMITED Vs. AUROMA COKE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short "the Act of 1956") for winding up of Rohit Ferro-Tech Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company") on the ground that the company is commercially insolvent.

(2.) According to the petitioner, in terms of the various purchase orders issued by the company between April 2014 and September 2015, it supplied coal to the company. Against the total quantity of coal supplied the petitioner raised various invoices upon the company which were received by the latter. By an electronic mail dated September 17, 2015 the company sent an account confirmation statement (hereinafter referred to as the "said account confirmation") admitting the outstanding principal dues of the petitioner for Rs. 78,27,887/- on account of coal supplied between the period April 1, 2014 and September 16, 2015. However, in spite of requests of the petitioner the company did not pay said amount or any part thereof. By a notice dated March 15, 2016 issued under Section 434 of the Act of 1956 the petitioner called upon the company to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 78,27,887/- as admitted by itself in the said account confirmation, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In spite of receipt of the said statutory notice neither did the company reply to the same, nor did it make any payment to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner filed the present application for winding up of the company.

(3.) The company filed its affidavit-in-opposition to the application alleging that by various letters between March 8, 2014 and August 14, 2014 it informed the petitioner of defective supply, as also short supply of coal. In this connection, the company disclosed the letters dated March 08, 2014, March 25, 2014, August 11, 2014 and August 14,2014 addressed to the petitioner. It further alleged that the said account confirmation was prepared by an officer of the company who was not conversant with the details and the same does not include the deductions to which company is entitled on account of delay in supply of goods under the purchase orders. Further, at the relevant time the staff of the company had issued en masse resignation and, as such, the statutory notice dated March 15, 2016 issued by the petitioner could not be placed before the persons responsible to deal with the same and the company could not reply to the said statutory notice. The company also alleged that it is entitled to receive Rs. 2,30.40.000/- from the petitioner due to production loss and damage suffered by itself because of delayed supply of coal.