STEPHEN CHEMICAL LIMITED Vs. INNOSEARCH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MESSRS Innosearch Ltd. , 2e/25, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, petitioned this court under section 439 read with section's 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for winding-up Messrs Stephen Chemical Limited, Flat No. 119-120, sector 17-B, Chandigarh, with the allegations that the former company supplied goods worth Rs. 48,308 to the latter company against order No. 572/211, dated December 18, 1979, under the petitioning company's bill No. B/a-III/5, dated December 25, 1979 ; that despite reminders, the said company did not clear the bill; that on November 18, 1981, the petitioning company issued demand under section 434 of the Act, requiring the other company to pay Rs. 50,842. 05, together with a sum of Rs. 200 towards the costs of notices within the specified period; and that in spite of the said notices, the other said company failed to make payment.

(2.) MESSRS Stephen Chemical Ltd. before the company judge admitted its liability regarding the price of the goods in question and paid up the principal amount. It, however, disputed its liability regarding the payment of interest on the said amount. The learned judge, vide his order dated May 31, 1984, directed Messrs Stephen Chemical Ltd. to pay the petitioning company twelve per cent. interest on the principal amount.

(3.) MESSRS Stephen Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " the appellant") have challenged the said order of the company judge. The stand taken on behalf of the appellant is that there was no agreement between the parties regarding the payment of interest nor there existed any trade custom providing for the payment of interest. It is also the stand of the appellant that in case the company whose winding up is sought raises a bona fide dispute regarding its liability to pay to the creditor company, then the appropriate forum for determining that dispute is the civil court and not the company judge. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P.) Ltd. v. A. C. K. Krishnaswami [1965] 35 Comp Cas 456 (SC), and drew pointed attention to the following observations of their Lordships made therein (at p. 463):