Dismissal of Winding-Up Petition over Disputed Professional Fees

The court dismissed the winding-up petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent company for alleged non-payment of professional fees for architectural design services. The court found a bona fide dispute regarding the liability of the respondent towards the fees claimed, particularly for services related to Phase-II of the project. Emphasizing that the respondent was not commercially insolvent and that the liability was disputed, the court concluded that winding-up jurisdiction could not be exercised in such circumstances. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue an alternative remedy through a Civil Suit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Claim of non-payment of professional fees by the petitioner against the respondent company for architectural design services provided for a construction project.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a firm, entered into a contract with the respondent company to provide Architectural Design services for a Residential Apartment building project. The petitioner filed a Winding-up petition against the respondent company for alleged non-payment of professional fees amounting to Rs. 1.80 Crores. Despite serving a legal notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, the respondent company denied liability for the claimed sum and contended that the petitioner did not complete services for Phase-II of the project, for which fees were not required to be paid. The respondent argued that as Phase-I was completed, the balance amount was not due. The respondent further stated that the project was incomplete, and services were not fully rendered by the petitioner for Phase-II.

The respondent's Statement of Objections emphasized that there was no admitted liability to pay the claimed amount and that the winding-up petition should be dismissed. The respondent asserted that it was a going concern, regularly paid taxes, and was not commercially insolvent. The respondent argued that the liability was disputed, making the petition not maintainable. The court noted a bona fide dispute regarding the liability of the respondent towards the professional fees claimed by the petitioner. While Phase-I of the project was completed under the petitioner's services, there was a dispute regarding Phase-II, as evidenced by communication and non-payment issues.

The court highlighted that the agreement for professional services between the parties was not smooth, and no final admitted liability in favor of the petitioner crystallized. It emphasized that the jurisdiction of winding-up could not be exercised against a solvent company with a bona fide disputed liability. The court concluded that the winding-up petition did not merit admission and should be dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue an alternative remedy through a Civil Suit. The judgment clarified that the winding-up jurisdiction was not for exerting pressure on the respondent company in the absence of a clearly admitted liability.

---