Court rules in favor of petitioner in winding-up petition against respondent for non-payment, appoints Official Liquidator.

The court found in favor of the petitioner in a winding-up petition against the respondent company for non-payment of supplied goods. The defense raised by the respondent regarding defective goods was deemed a sham defense as it lacked evidence and was introduced after the petition was filed. The court dismissed the respondent's claim of not receiving the statutory notice, noting evidence of dispatch and sufficient address details. The court appointed the Official Liquidator as a Provisional Liquidator, instructing the directors to provide company details within 21 days. Failure to comply would lead to liquidation proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Petition for winding up under section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 based on alleged non-payment for supplied goods. Controversy over the bona fide nature of the defense raised by the respondent. Dispute regarding defective goods, issuance of debit note, and receipt of statutory notice under Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a winding-up petition against the respondent company for non-payment of Rs. 22,73,236 for supplied goods. The respondent disputed the claim, alleging the goods were defective and issuing a debit note of Rs. 17,23,180. However, the petitioner argued that no written communication regarding defective goods was provided, and the ledger account showed the amount due. The court found the defense of defective goods raised by the respondent to be a sham defense, as it was introduced after the petition was filed, lacking supporting evidence or communication to the petitioner.

The respondent also disputed receiving the statutory notice under Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court dismissed this claim, noting that evidence proved the notice was dispatched by courier and speed post, and the address mentioned was sufficient for delivery. Additionally, the court highlighted that the respondent's delay tactics in responding to the petition, including failure to file required documents and pay imposed costs, demonstrated an attempt to prolong the proceedings unjustly.

Consequently, the court appointed the Official Liquidator as a Provisional Liquidator to take charge of the respondent's assets and books of account. The directors were instructed to file a Statement of Affairs within 21 days and provide details of the company's records and offices. A two-week period was granted for the respondent to settle its dues, during which the appointment of the Official Liquidator was put on hold. Failure to comply within this timeframe would result in the Official Liquidator proceeding with the liquidation process. The court disposed of the case, with a provision for relisting on a specified date for further proceedings.

---