Petition Dismissed: Lack of Notice, Defence Raised, Similar Precedent

The Petition was dismissed primarily due to the failure to serve the statutory notice as required by law and the substantial defence raised by the Respondent-guarantor regarding defective machinery supplied to the principal borrower. The Court, bound by a previous order addressing a similar defence, dismissed the Petition against another guarantor. Consequently, the present Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Service of statutory notice as required by law.
2. Liability of the guarantor in the context of the principal borrower's dispute with the supplier.
3. Distinction between petitions brought against the principal borrower and those against the guarantor.

Detailed Analysis

1. Service of Statutory Notice
The primary issue was whether the statutory notice was served on the Respondent as required by law. The Petitioner argued that the endorsement "I.P." (Intimation Posted) on the returned registered post was sufficient compliance with Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court, however, disagreed, stating that the requirement under Section 434(1)(a) is for the notice to be "delivered at its registered office," which necessitates actual delivery of the notice. The Court cited several precedents, including *Vysya Bank Limited v. Randhir Steel and Alloys (P) Limited* and *Kold-Hold Industries (P) Limited v. Arabian Exports Limited*, emphasizing that substantial compliance is not sufficient for statutory notices under Section 434. The Court found no evidence of attempted hand-delivery or multiple attempts to serve the notice, further weakening the Petitioner's case.

2. Liability of the Guarantor
The Petitioner sought to wind up the Respondent Company based on a loan agreement where the Respondent was a guarantor for the principal borrower, S.K. Agrotech Ltd. The Respondent argued that the machinery supplied by Kiefel GmbH to S.K. Agrotech Ltd. was defective, raising a bona fide dispute. The Court referenced a previous order dated 7th December 2015, where a similar defence was considered substantial, leading to the dismissal of Company Petition No. 340 of 2013 against another guarantor. The Court held that the Respondent's liability as a guarantor could not be separated from the principal borrower's liability, thus recognizing the defence as bona fide.

3. Distinction Between Petitions Against Principal Borrower and Guarantor
The Court noted that while it would have preferred to distinguish between petitions brought against the principal borrower and those against the guarantor, it was bound by the previous order of 7th December 2015. This order dealt with a similar situation where the Respondent-guarantor's defence was deemed substantial. The Court emphasized that it could not sit in appeal over this order and was bound by it, leading to the dismissal of the present Petition.

Conclusion
The Petition was dismissed on two primary grounds: the failure to serve the statutory notice as required by law and the substantial defence raised by the Respondent-guarantor concerning the defective machinery supplied to the principal borrower. The Court was bound by a previous order which had already addressed a similar defence, leading to the dismissal of a petition against another guarantor. Consequently, the present Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---