SUPRIYA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED Vs. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for winding up of the respondent company on the plea that it is unable to pay its admitted debt.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent company had entered into a purchase agreement with the petitioner company for purchase of drugs, which are manufactured by the petitioner company for the purpose of export by the respondent company. Raw material was to be imported by the respondent company as per the terms of agreement. Raw material purchased by the respondent company and supplied to the petitioner was to be debited in the account of the petitioner, whereas value of the manufactured medicines supplied by the petitioner were to be credited. On 5.8.1998, the petitioner received a consignment of raw material containing Penicillin-G consisting of 30,000 BOU amounting to Rs. 1,72,88,254/-.The amount was debited in the account of the petitioner by the respondent company. However, on testing it was found that the material was spurious. The respondent company was informed by the petitioner on 7.8.1998 with a request not to make the payment of the material to the supplier.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner company further submitted that raw material was to be imported by the respondent company and it was its responsibility to ensure that the raw material was of good quality, but still when the quality thereof was intimated, the respondent company vide letter dated 19.5.1999 informed the petitioner company that it has made a claim with the insurance company and any benefit received after settlement will be passed on to the petitioner company, whereas the petitioner company had nothing to do as the import was made by the respondent company. Ultimately the insurance claim was declined. Statutory notice dated 3.10.2009 was got issued to the respondent company, which was replied to by taking false plea that in fact the respondent company is to recover a sum of Rs. 3,05,48,689/- from the petitioner company for which there was no basis. The defence sought to be taken was totally sham. It was taken just with a view to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner company. In support of the plea that the petition filed was not belated, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the order passed by the BIFR dated 25.3.2009 where it was observed that the petitioner company shall take immediate steps for recovery of the dues of Rs. 1,72,00,000/- from the respondent company. The petition was filed immediately thereafter.