2005 (1) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n agreement on 24th of December, 1993 whereunder the petitioner agreed to execute the job of "Rehabilitation work on H.L. Bridge over river TEL on Bolangir-Bhawanipatna Road near Belgaon on S.H. 2" in accor- dance with the specification and the terms and conditions contained in the price bid of the petitioner in his letter dated 10-4-1993, detailed tender call notice of the Company with subsequent modification as per discussions held with the representatives of the petitioner and the letters dated 8-5-1993, 27-8-1993, 20-9-1993 and 24-9-1993 of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner started the work with a view to finish the same by 15-5-1994 and the petitioner informed the Company that work on two spans was taken up....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the period for completion of the said work expired on 28-2-1994. It is also stated in the said counter-affidavit that the petitioner neither made arrangement for test checking of the work in respect of Span No. 2 nor resumed work in Span No. 3. Regarding payment of final bill, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the final bill was prepared and the petitioner was requested to comply with the objections raised in the letter dated 24-8-1995 of the Company, but the petitioner only submitted a reply and did not comply with the objections. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that pursuant to Order dated 26-8-1996 passed by the High Court in a Writ Petition O.J.C. No. 8681 of 1996 the Company finalised the bill and remitted Rs. 9,864....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p by a creditor who claimed payment of an agreed sum for work done for the company when the company contended that the work had not been properly was not allowed. [See Re Brighten Club & Norfolk Hotel Co. Ltd. [1865] 35 Beav. 204]." It will be clear from the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court that if the debt is bona fide disputed by the Company and the defence is a substantial one, the Court will not pass an order for winding up of the Company. In the English decision of Re Brighten Club & Norfolk Hotel Co. Ltd. [1865] 35 Beav. 204 referred to in the observations of the Supreme Court quoted above, a petition for winding up by a creditor who claimed for an agreed sum for the work done for the company was not allowed when the company....