Winding-up petition dismissed under Companies Act. Lack of evidence for completion. Pursue civil proceedings.

S.K. Engineering Co. Versus Siri Ram Syal Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd.

S.K. Engineering Co. Versus Siri Ram Syal Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:
Petition filed under Sections 433 (e) read with section 434 (1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent company.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent for a project. A revised contract was signed in 2009, including a retention amount of Rs. 15 lakhs to be paid after project commissioning. The petitioner claims the project was completed in 2014, and the retention amount remains unpaid.

2. The respondent contends that the petitioner failed to complete the work, leading to engagement of another company for the project. They argue that the retention amount is not payable due to the petitioner's breach of contract, supported by communications highlighting incomplete work.

3. Legal provisions under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 are examined. The court refers to the discretionary nature of winding up orders and the requirement for a determined debt. The judgment cites a Supreme Court case emphasizing the commercial sense of "unable to pay its dues" and the need for a definite sum payable by the company.

4. The court notes that while the project was commissioned, the respondent disputes completion due to alleged breaches by the petitioner. The lack of documentation proving satisfactory completion of work leads the court to dismiss the petition, stating no debt exists that the respondent is unable to pay.

5. The judgment concludes that without evidence of completed work to the satisfaction of the respondent, the petitioner should pursue civil proceedings for any outstanding dues. The petition is dismissed, and all pending applications are also rejected.