TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (5) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts pleaded in C.P. No. 138 of 1988 are : The petitioner is engaged in the business of supplying all kinds of rods, angles, flats, etc. The registered office of the respondent-company is situate at 182, A.G.C.R. Enclave, I.P. Extension II, New Delhi. The petitioner entered into an agreement and understanding for supply of iron and steel material to the respondent company. The stipulations were that the payment would be made by the respondent company within 90 days of the receipt of the bills raised by the petitioner and that interest at 18 per cent. shall be charged on the amount of the bills which remain unpaid. The bills will be paid by account payee cheques only. In pursuance of the said undertaking, the petitioner supplied to the resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s all along been admitting the liability and there is no bona fide dispute regarding the indebtedness of the company and that, in spite of the reminders including the statutory notice, the company has neglected and failed to pay the said sum and it is just and equitable to pass an order for the winding up of the company. The facts pleaded in C.P. No. 139 of 1988 are almost similar. The only difference is that the principal amount alleged is Rs. 1,54,894.40 besides interest of Rs. 53,281.36 as on September 15, 1988, at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum thus, making a total of Rs. 2,08,175.76. The particulars of the cheques alleged to have been issued by the respondent-company in this petition are these : Ch. No. Date Amount B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng with the petitions any proof in support of the averments that it served statutory notices for winding-up on the respondent-company. In answer to show cause, the respondent-company has, inter alia, pleaded that : (1) no notice was received by the respondent company and no proof has been enclosed of service of notice and as such the presumption of deemed insolvency of the company under section 434(1)(a) cannot be raised ; (2) there is no averment in the petition to the effect that the company is unable to pay its debts as required by section 433(e); (3) no goods were supplied and none were actually received by the company and the petition has been filed in connivance with Sh. Navjeevan Sood, ex-managing director of the company, who took....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cord that any other mode was adopted. In any case, the averments in the petitions, that statutory notices were served on the respondent company are incorrect. Furthermore, the requirement of section 434(1)(a ) is that the notice is to be delivered at the registered office of the company. During the course of arguments in C.P. No. 138 of 1988 the petitioner placed on record a postal envelope said to have been sent by the petitioner to the respondent company. The address given on the said postal envelope is not that of registered office of the respondent-company but the address given is that of Faridabad. Similarly, a postal envelope was also filed on the record of C.P. No. 139 of 1988. On the said envelope though the address given is that of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the company. Assuming that the petitioners have pleaded sufficient facts to show that the company is unable to pay its debts, I will now examine the documents placed on record by the petitioners and in the light of the said documents consider whether the disputes raised by the respondent company are bona fide or not. As noticed above, the petitioners have not placed on record the statements of account or acknowledgments thereof by the respondent company though pleaded in the petitions. The four cheques, subject-matter of C.P. No. 138 of 1988, alleged to have been issued by the respondent company are dated October 24, 1986, October 29, 1986, November 3, 1966, and November 10, 1986. The two bills under which it is alleged that the material....