TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oning-creditor filed a petition for winding up the appellant inter alia on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. The respondent's claim is for the price of goods viz. acrylic yarn, sold and delivered by it to the appellant. The claim in the sum of Rs. 8,92,723/- is on account of the balance amount due under four invoices. 3. The receipt of the goods is not denied. The appellant also admits having appropriated the goods in respect whereof the claim has been raised, but contends that the goods were not of the requisite quality. The defence is not bona-fide. The order of the learned Company Judge must, therefore, be upheld. 4. There indeed were disputes regarding the quality of a part of the consignment. However, admittedly, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t it was reflected in its conduct by the grant of credit. It is reasonable to presume that if there were any other defects and, in any event, if the appellant's case was that the goods were defective, it would have recorded the same in some manner or the other. The appellant, however, contends that the discussions in this regard were only oral. In the facts of this case it is difficult to accept this contention. The appellant's case has varied between its reply to the statutory notice and its written statement. The respondent served a statutory notice dated 25.08.2008. The appellant's reply dated 10.09.2008 to the statutory notice does not refer to an oral agreement much less an agreement by the respondent to pay the appellant compensati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n raised before us. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that a petition for winding up a company under Section 433 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 is maintainable only if the company has admitted the debt. The contention is not well-founded. 12. As Mr. Amandeep Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, rightly submitted, the test is whether there is a bona fide dispute or not and whether the company has admitted the claim or not. In most cases, the company sought to be wound up does not admit its liability. It can hardly be suggested that merely because a debt has not been specifically or impliedly admitted a petition for winding up is not maintainable. We agree with Mr. Amandeep Singh that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15, a Division Bench of this Court issued notice to the respondent. The Court also stayed the publication of the admission notice subject to the appellant paying the amount in question by 31.12.2015. The appellant paid the same and thereby availed the benefit of the stay order. 15. In view of our finding that there is no bona fide dispute, there is no question of directing the respondent to repay the amount. Thus, in view thereof, while the respondent is entitled to retain the amount, the petition is liable to be dismissed on account of the appellant having satisfied the respondent's claim to the extent mentioned in the impugned order. 16. The invoices do not provide for interest. Nor is there any other document or agreement that prov....