2007 (11) TMI 420

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 21-11-2005, the company petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and the appellant-company is ordered to be wound up. According to the respondent, the petitioner herein had placed a work order on 11-11-1998, for fabrication of 440 metric tons of steel structures for boiler house roof trusses, for its thermal power plant at Bellary at a total value of Rs. 23,32,000. The appellant having supplied the required raw material to the respondent herein to complete the job of fabrication and the same was fabricated by the respondent to the satisfaction of the appellant herein. Accordingly, the respondent raised a bill dated November 26, 1998, for Rs. 12,56,540.32 and another bill for Rs. 1,39,504.48 on December 24,1998 and one more bill da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that when the respondent has obtained a decree from the Andhra Pradesh Industry Facilitation Council under the provisions of the Industrial Undertakings Act, the company petition under section 443 of the Act was not maintainable. He alternatively contends that the company petition was barred by the principles of res judicata. 6. According to learned counsel for the respondent even though sufficient opportunity was given by the Company Judge to the appellant herein to file the statement of objections, the same was not filed. According to him, even though objections were not received by the Company Judge, on the ground of delay and laches, the Company Judge has considered all the points raised by the appellant herein during the course o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ispute that no reply has been sent by the appellant to show that there is really a dispute in existence between the appellant and the respondent. 9. Either before the learned Company Judge or in the statement of objections sought to be filed by the appellant, nowhere it is mentioned by the appellant that the appellant-company is viable one and is capable of discharging the debts either to the respondent or to any other creditors. It is also not in dispute that the respondent herein has obtained a decree from the Council under the provisions of the Industrial Undertakings Act. On perusal of the said Act, it is clear the Act has been incorporated to give benefit only in regard to the interest and not in regard to the actual debt. Therefore....