Court admits company petition for winding up due to unpaid debts, grants 60 days to pay.

The court admitted the company petition seeking winding up of the respondent company due to unpaid debts. The respondent company was given 60 days to discharge the admitted debt of Rs. 1,77,03,540.68. The court allowed the petitioner to pursue the claim for interest in a separate proceeding. Failure to pay within the specified time would result in further legal action, including advertising the petition. The court emphasized the respondent company's liability for debts regardless of management changes and dismissed the fraud allegation regarding the acknowledgment of debt.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Petition for winding up of the respondent company under Sections 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Liability of the respondent company for the outstanding dues claimed by the petitioner.
3. Validity of the claim for interest on the outstanding dues.
4. Dispute regarding the liability due to change in management from BW Group to DCBL Group.
5. Allegation of fraud in procuring acknowledgment of debt.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Petition for Winding Up:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, filed a petition under Sections 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking an order for winding up the respondent company due to its inability to pay admitted debts. The petitioner had executed civil construction, fabrication, and erection works for the respondent company under two agreements and corresponding work orders. Despite partial payments, a balance of Rs. 1,77,03,540.68 remained unpaid.

2. Liability of the Respondent Company:
The petitioner raised a claim for the outstanding dues of Rs. 1,77,03,540.68, supported by various communications and an acknowledgment of debt by the respondent's Manager (Finance). The respondent company, now managed by DCBL Group, contended that the liability pertained to the period when BW Group controlled the company and argued that the liability was to be indemnified by BW Group as per the shareholders' agreement. However, the court noted that the respondent company, as a legal entity, could not deny its liability based on internal arrangements between BW Group and DCBL Group.

3. Validity of the Claim for Interest:
The petitioner also claimed interest of Rs. 1,69,19,853.54 at 24% per annum on the outstanding dues. The court found no clause in the contract agreement permitting such interest and held that the claim for interest, being a contentious issue, could not be adjudicated in the company petition. The petitioner was allowed to pursue the interest claim in an appropriate proceeding.

4. Dispute Due to Change in Management:
The respondent argued that the change in management absolved it of liability for debts incurred under BW Group's control. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the respondent company, as a legal entity, remained liable for its debts regardless of management changes. The court also noted that the amended shareholders' agreement acknowledged the debt to the petitioner.

5. Allegation of Fraud:
The respondent alleged that the acknowledgment of debt was procured fraudulently, as the employee who issued the letter resigned shortly thereafter. The court dismissed this claim, stating that mere assertions without substantiation could not negate the established debt. The court found the communications and records consistent and credible, affirming the debt's validity.

Conclusion:
The court admitted the company petition, granting the respondent company 60 days to discharge the admitted debt of Rs. 1,77,03,540.68. The claim for interest was left open for the petitioner to pursue in a separate proceeding. The court emphasized that failure to pay within the stipulated time would lead to further legal action, including advertising the petition.

---