INDER SURGICAL Vs. CITY CLINIC (P) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition for winding up has been filed under Sections 433 (e) and (f), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') on the plea that the respondent-company is unable to pay debt of 5,96,907/- as principal and interest due thereon despite repeated reminders and notice for winding up of the company.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is carrying on the business of supply of medicines and surgical goods. The respondent-company is operating a nursing home. The petitioner is having dealings since 2007 regarding supply of surgical items and medicines to the respondent-company, against which payments were being made. As per statement of account (Annexure P-1) starting from 5.4.2007, as on 19.11.2012, there was a debit balance of 5,96,907.04 in the account of the respondent-company with the petitioner. Despite request, the amount was not paid. Some of the bills regarding which issues were raised by the respondent-company have been annexed. Leaned counsel further referred to communication dated 15.12.2011 from the respondent-company, whereby it had admitted that a sum of 51,88,094/- was due to the petitioner, for which schedule of payment of 48,05,850.00 was provided. Regarding 3,64,000.00, it was mentioned that the same pertained to AICD Pacemaker used in patient-Jagir Singh, the payment of which shall be made on receipt from ECHS. Receipt of bills amounting to 7,488.00 and 2,350.00 was disputed. Thereafter, statutory notice under Sec. 434 of the Act was issued on 7.12.2012, which was not responded to.

(3.) In the aforesaid factual matrix, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the debt, being undisputed, the respondent company having failed to clear the same despite repeated requests and even the statutory notice, it should be wound up. He further submitted that stand of the respondent-company that payment of 3,64,000.00 shall be made after receipt thereof from ECHS cannot be accepted as there was no privity of dealing between the petitioner and the patient. The pacemaker was supplied to the respondent-company. Merely because it has not received the payment from ECHS, the petitioner cannot be deprived thereof. He further submitted that the respondent-company though has tried to say that it has good financial health, but it has concealed the material fact regarding the amount due to the petitioners in its books of account. There is no definite stand taken in the reply as well.