Court rejects winding up application, finds company's defense substantial. Petitioning creditor directed to seek civil remedy.

The court found that the company had presented a substantial defense, leading to the rejection of the winding up applications. The court determined that passing a winding up order was not warranted and directed the petitioning creditor to seek a civil remedy instead. The court excluded the period of the winding up applications from the computation of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and emphasized that all conclusions and observations were preliminary.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the winding up applications under Sections 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, are maintainable.
2. Whether the sale transactions between the petitioning creditor and the company justify a winding up order.
3. Whether the defense raised by the company regarding set-off of debts is valid.
4. Whether the companies involved should be treated as a single entity or separate entities for the purpose of adjudicating liabilities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Winding Up Applications:
The winding up applications were filed under Sections 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The applications are based on sale transactions that took place between July 2011 and August 2011, where the petitioning creditor sold and delivered iron and steel materials to the company. The company failed to pay the invoice value of Rs. 6,18,91,744/- and did not respond to the statutory notice dated 11th December 2013, leading to a presumption of insolvency under Section 434(1)(a) of the Act. The total claim in the winding up petition is Rs. 10,41,13,301.99, inclusive of interest.

2. Justification for Winding Up Order:
The petitioning creditor presented evidence of the sale and delivery of goods, including invoices and VAT returns. The company admitted the transaction in its Affidavit in Opposition but argued that the price receivable by the petitioning creditor was set off against the price receivable by the company for a previous sale in 2009. The company provided a confirmation of account dated 31st December 2011, showing a balance of Rs. 2,17,17,439/- due from the petitioning creditor. The court noted that the cross transactions appear to be real, and there is no evidence that the petitioning creditor made any payment for the goods supplied by Concast Bengal Industries Ltd. in 2009.

3. Validity of Set-Off Defense:
The company argued that the transactions between the petitioning creditor and Concast Bengal Industries Ltd. in 2009 should be set off against the transactions with Concast Exim Ltd. in 2011. The petitioning creditor contended that the transactions with Concast Exim Ltd. were separate and should not be clubbed with those involving Concast Bengal Industries Ltd. The court observed that the set-off defense needs to be scrutinized at trial to determine whether it was legal or equitable and whether it could be claimed. The court found that the company had established a prima facie case that the goods shipped by the petitioning creditor in 2011 were in lieu of payment for the goods shipped to them in 2009.

4. Treatment of Companies as Single Entity or Separate Entities:
The court considered whether the companies involved should be treated as a single entity or separate entities. The petitioning creditor and the company are part of different groups of companies, controlled by different individuals. The court noted that the concept of "Lifting of the Corporate Veil" may be applied to determine the real arrangement between the parties. The court found prima facie evidence that Concast Exim Ltd. and Concast Bengal Industries Ltd. were part of the same group and controlled by the same person. The court concluded that the arrangement between the parties could only be established on affidavit and required further investigation.

Conclusion:
The court held that the company had advanced a substantial defense, making it inappropriate to pass a winding up order. The court refused to admit the winding up applications and relegated the petitioning creditor to a civil remedy. The period during which the winding up applications were pending in court would be excluded for computing limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. All findings and observations were to be taken as prima facie.

---