Court admits winding-up petition for outstanding dues, appoints Official Liquidator for provisional oversight.

The court admitted the petition for winding up the respondent company based on outstanding dues of Rs. 2,12,288 for security services provided by the petitioner. The court appointed the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator to oversee the winding-up process, granting a six-week period for the respondent to pay the outstanding amount. Failure to do so would result in further liquidation proceedings. The judgment emphasized the importance of genuine disputes and transparency in resolving outstanding dues to prevent misuse of winding-up petitions.

---

---

Issues:
Petition under section 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent company based on outstanding dues of the petitioner for security services provided.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner provided security services to the respondent from November 2013 to December 2015, raising invoices totaling Rs. 2,94,606, of which only Rs. 82,318 was paid, leaving an outstanding amount of Rs. 2,12,288. The respondent did not dispute the invoices but failed to release full payment, leading to the petition for winding up.

2. The respondent's reply presented contradictory statements. In the preliminary submission, it admitted to availing security services from the petitioner for other factories, highlighting the petitioner's defaults in paying dues of workmen. However, in the reply on merit, the respondent denied engaging the petitioner for security services at its corporate office, refuting the existence of any agreement or services provided.

3. The court noted the contradictory nature of the respondent's submissions, emphasizing the importance of scrutinizing pleadings for unequivocal admissions. Citing previous judgments, the court highlighted that vague and evasive denials could imply admissions, especially when inconsistent statements are made.

4. Referring to legal precedents, the court emphasized that a genuine dispute must exist for a winding-up petition to be dismissed. In this case, as the respondent failed to raise a substantial dispute regarding the outstanding dues, the court admitted the petition for winding up. The Official Liquidator was appointed as the Provisional Liquidator to take over the assets and records of the respondent company.

5. The court granted a six-week period for the respondent to pay the outstanding dues. If the amount of Rs. 2,12,288 was paid within this period, the order appointing the Official Liquidator as the provisional liquidator would be recalled, providing an opportunity for settlement before further liquidation proceedings.

6. The court directed the publication of citations in newspapers and the Delhi Gazette, and mandated the petitioner to deposit a sum towards the cost of publication. The Official Liquidator was tasked with inventorying assets, sealing premises, valuing assets, and seizing bank accounts to facilitate the winding-up process.

7. The judgment underscored the need for genuine disputes to be raised to avoid misuse of winding-up petitions, ensuring a fair and transparent resolution of outstanding dues between parties involved.

---