Court orders winding up of respondent-company under Companies Act, 1956 for non-payment of goods supplied. Respondent's defense not bona fide.

The court admitted the petition for winding up the respondent-company under the Companies Act, 1956 due to non-payment for supplied goods. The court found the respondent's defense not bona fide, noting discrepancies in their claims and actions, ultimately concluding that the respondent failed to make the due payment, indicating an inability to pay debts. The court ordered the winding up of the respondent-company and its publication in specified publications for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Claim for winding up of respondent-company under Companies Act, 1956 due to non-payment for supplied goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a company petition seeking winding up of the respondent-company, a public limited company engaged in manufacturing BOPP films, for non-payment of supplied goods. The petitioner claimed a total due amount of Rs. 9,26,341 after adjustments. The respondent issued cheques for payment, which were dishonored by the bank. Despite reminders and a notice under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, the respondent failed to pay the due amount. The petitioner alleged a total liability of Rs. 13,02,993.78, including interest, and sought winding up of the respondent-company for non-payment.

In response, the respondent contended that the material supplied by the petitioner was not of agreed quality, leading to disputes. The respondent claimed that the cheques were post-dated for rejected material and were presented without notice. The respondent denied receiving the notice under section 434. The petitioner, in rebuttal, denied the allegations and reiterated the claim made in the petition.

After evaluating the arguments, the court found the respondent's defense not bona fide. The dispute centered around payment for goods supplied through various invoices. The court noted that the respondent's letters did not mention any dispute regarding the bills in question. Moreover, instances were cited where the respondent accepted defective goods and made payments without raising quality concerns. The court highlighted discrepancies in the respondent's claims and actions, indicating lack of bona fide intention in defense. Consequently, the court held that the respondent failed to make the due payment, concluding that the respondent was unable to pay its debts.

As a result, the court admitted the petition for winding up the respondent-company and ordered its publication in specified publications for further proceedings.

---