Court holds respondent directly liable for goods supplied, rejects technical agent defense.

The court found the respondent liable for payment of goods supplied by the petitioner, rejecting the defense of acting as a technical agent for another entity. Despite admissions of liability by a related company, the court held the respondent directly responsible due to the established contractual relationship. The respondent's attempts to avoid liability through inspection issues and purported defenses were deemed insincere. The court ordered the respondent to deposit specified amounts within six weeks, failing which the winding-up petitions would proceed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability for payment of goods supplied.
2. Agency relationship and its implications under Section 230 of the Contract Act, 1872.
3. Admission of liability and its binding nature.
4. Inspection of documents and procedural fairness.
5. Bona fide defense and grounds for winding up.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability for Payment of Goods Supplied:
The petitioner supplied various lubricants and oil to the respondent's vessels between June 1999 and February 2000, issuing invoices for the goods. The petitioner claimed an outstanding amount of US $62,046.96, with a part payment cheque of US $22,000 issued by Glenrich Ltd. being dishonored. Despite multiple assurances from Admiral Shipping Ltd. (a group company) to clear the dues, the payment was not made, leading to the issuance of a statutory notice under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up the respondent-company.

2. Agency Relationship and Section 230 of the Contract Act, 1872:
The respondent-company contended that it was merely acting as a technical agent for Glenrich Ltd., UK, and thus not liable for the payment. The respondent argued that under Section 230 of the Contract Act, an agent cannot be personally bound by contracts made on behalf of a disclosed principal. The court examined whether the petitioner was aware of the agency relationship and whether the respondent had disclosed the principal's name. The court found no evidence that the respondent disclosed Glenrich Ltd. as the principal at any point during the transactions.

3. Admission of Liability:
The court noted several letters from Admiral Shipping Ltd. admitting liability and promising payment. The respondent-company argued that these admissions were not binding on them as they were made by a different entity. However, the court held that irrespective of these admissions, the respondent-company was liable due to the direct contractual relationship established by the purchase orders and invoices.

4. Inspection of Documents:
The respondent-company raised grievances about not receiving inspection of documents. The court directed the petitioner to provide all relevant documents, which were subsequently furnished. Despite this, the respondent continued to raise inspection issues, which the court found to be a tactic to avoid liability. The court emphasized that the documents provided were sufficient for the respondent to verify the claims.

5. Bona Fide Defense and Grounds for Winding Up:
The court found that the defenses raised by the respondent were not bona fide but rather desperate attempts to avoid liability. The respondent's denial of operating as part of a group of companies was contradicted by evidence, including a greeting card listing the respondent as part of the Sunrich group. The court concluded that no serious bona fide defenses were raised and directed the respondent to deposit specified amounts in court within six weeks. Failure to do so would result in the petitions being admitted and advertised.

Conclusion:
The court directed the respondent-company to deposit the equivalent of US $75,000 and US $50,000 in Indian rupees for the respective company petitions within six weeks. If the amounts were not deposited, the petitions would be admitted and advertised. The court found the respondent's defenses to be insincere and aimed at evading payment obligations.

---