UNITED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. PICCADILY AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a partnership concern through its partner Shri Gurnam Singh Mauji, has filed this petition under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, praying that Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-company") be wound up for its inability to pay debts.

(2.) IN order to support this petition, the facts, as stated in the petitioner, are that the new managing director-cum-chairman of the respondent-company held a meeting and negotiations for construction of the boundary wall of the company, namely, Indri. The petitioner claims to have done various works for and on behalf of the respondent-company and had a long standing business relationship. The petitioner after constructing the boundary wall submitted the first and final bill dated April 20, 1995, for a sum of Rs. 5,66,624. 12 out of which only a sum of Rs. 4,60,017 was paid. However, as the respondent-company failed to clear the balance payment of Rs. 1,06,607. 12, the petitioner served a notice upon the respondent-company through its lawyer on June 9, 1997, which was received by the respondents but they did not give any reply to the said notice resulting in the filing of the present company petition.

(3.) REPLICATION was filed to this written statement on behalf of the respondent where it was sought to be clarified that an annexure P-1 to the main petition is not a document executed by the respondent but a document giving the summary of accounts simpliciter. In paragraphs 5-7 of the replication, still another version was sought to be introduced as would be clear from the said paragraphs which read as under : "5-7. That paras. 5, 6 and 7 as stated are wrong and hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that the contract for construction of the building of the sugar mill was not awarded by the respondent. It may however be mentioned here that in September, 1995, the petitioner abruptly abandoned the project at Patran. The petitioner did not even bother to complete the contract awarded to it by the respondent for construction of the building in village Bhadson. In February, 1995, the petitioner abruptly abandoned the project after constructing only part of the boundary wall. The respondent has suffered huge losses due to the petitioner not completing the project in terms of the contract awarded to it. The petitioner did not even bother to pay the wages of its labour which were at the project site. The respondent ended up paying the wages of the labour. This fact is even borne out in annexure P-2 attached with the above noted petition. The boundary wall was never completed by the petitioner and till date is lying incomplete. No bill was ever submitted to the respondent by the petitioner. The respondent itself released ad hoc payments to the petitioner. The petitioner has described annexure P-1 as a bill allegedly submitted by it whereas this document is only some sort of a chart prepared by the petitioner itself. The respondent denies the correctness and veracity of the annexures attached with the above noted petition. "