SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES Vs. SINGLA PROPERTY DEALER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) It is pleaded that the petitioner company having business interest in music, besides other things had obtained licence from the Government of India to broadcast FM Radio in the City of Hissar. Agreement was executed between the petitioner company and the respondent company on 11.9.2006 granting licence to the respondent company for broadcasting sound recording in which the petitioner company had a copy right. The aforesaid agreement was replaced by another agreement dated 22.5.2007. It was for a period of three years at an annual licence fee of Rs. 22,000,00/-. The amount was to be paid in equal monthly installments. On failure to pay three installments, the petitioner / licensor was within its rights to cancel/ terminate the licence and in that eventuality, the respondent company was liable to pay the entire balance licence fee for the remaining period. As the respondent-company had paid installments only for months of May to July, 2007 and the licence was directed to be terminated vide communication dated 14.9.2007, balance of Rs. 61,73,059/- was due from the respondent company in terms of agreement signed between the parties, the respondent company having failed to pay the debt, despite statutory notice, it deserves to be wound up.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the agreement is not in dispute. There were certain excess payments made in terms of earlier agreement dated 11.9.2006, which were adjusted when fresh agreement was signed on 22.5.2007. After adjustment of installment of April, 2007, still additional sum of Rs. 3,81,424/- remained balance with the petitioner company. The respondent company paid installments for May to July, 2007 and there being certain problems, it had stopped playing music with effect from 1.9.2007 and a communication to that effect was sent to the petitioner on 3.9.2007. As the petitioner company responded by stating that they had not received the contents of the envelope, the same was sent afresh on 7.9.2007. For any period after September, 2007 onwards, the respondent company is not liable to pay any licence fee as it has never used the licence. He further submitted that the amount sought to be claimed while placing reliance on terms of the contract, cannot be said to be a debt due, rather it is a kind of penalty and for non-payment thereof, the company cannot be ordered to be wound up. In support of his arguments, reliance was placed upon Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in CO. PET. 458/2010- Tower Vision India Private Limited vs Procall Private Limited decided on 24.8.2012.