DEE PRINT ASIA Vs. CUREFAST REMEDIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a creditor's petition filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), for the winding up of Curefast Remedies Ltd., with its registered office at Ludhiana (hereinafter called 'the company') on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts.

(2.) THE company planned a public issue of its equity shares in March, 1993, and the same opened on March 26, 1993. The petitioner firm through its sole proprietor, Shri Deepak Seem, was given a contract for the printing and distribution of public issue stationery including forms, brochures, prospectus and bank schedule pads, etc. It is claimed by the petitioner that the work of printing and distribution was completed to the satisfaction of the respondent -company and a bill for the work done was submitted to it. It is alleged that one Mr. Vinod, an employee of the company, was deputed to supervise the printing and distribution work and was constantly working in the premises of the petitioner to ensure that the material was not only printed in time but despatched to different stations. It is further claimed that after the closure of the public issue on March 30, 1993, the said Shri Vinod, on behalf of the company, wrote a handwritten letter on April 6, 1993, to the petitioner thanking the petitioner for the work done. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a total bill for the work done amounting to Rs. 23,43,536.75. It is admitted that the company had paid a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs till March 15, 1993. Thus, the total amount due to the petitioner as claimed by it comes to Rs. 11,43,536.75. According to the petitioner, the balance amount has not been paid and in spite of a statutory notice having been served on the company under Section 434 of the Act, it has failed/neglected to pay/adjust the same to the satisfaction of the petitioner. Hence, this petition for winding up.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and without examining each and every document produced by the company in support of its defence, I am of the view that the amount claimed by the petitioner is bona fide disputed by it and that the defence put up by the company is not an excuse to hide its inability to pay the amount. There is not enough material on the record for this court to hold that the amount as claimed by the petitioner is definitely due from the company. The disputed questions raised by the company in its defence cannot be gone into in the present proceedings without a regular trial of those issues.