TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 976
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal works in respect of 1.8 MW Hydro Electric Power Project at Kullu, Himachal Pradesh for Rs. 1,33,00,000/-. On 16.12.2009, a revised contract was entered into. As per the revised terms, Rs. 15 lakhs was to be held by the respondent as retention money which was to be released by the respondent to the petitioner after one month from the date of the commissioning. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the said project was commissioned on 23.01.2014. It is urged that in terms of the agreement between the parties dated 16.12.2009, an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs remains due and unpaid by the respondent. It is urged that a demand notice was sent to the respondent on 21.07.2014 which came back with the report refused. Thereafter, a notice for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner has relied upon the reply dated 16.04.2015 sent by the respondent to contend that an admission of unpaid dues of Rs. 15 lakhs still exists. It is also stated that the communications being relied upon by the respondent were never received. 7. I may first look at the legal position. Section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 read as follows:- "[433. Circumstances in which company may be wound up by court. A company may be wound up by the court,- ...... (e) if the company is unable to pay its debts; ...... 434. Company when deemed unable to pay its debts. (1) A company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts- (a) if a creditor, by assignment or otherwise, to whom the company is indebted in a sum excee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of which Rs. 15 lakhs was payable to the petitioner on commissioning of the project. The project has been commissioned on 23.01.2014. The retention amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was retained by the respondent. 10. The respondent has taken a stand that the said amount of retention money is not payable on account of the failure of the petitioner to complete the contract. It is urged that on account of the failure, the respondent had to engage the services of M/s. Ganapati Engineering Services on 15.12.2012. Hence, it is stated that no amount is payable by the respondent. Reliance is also placed on the reply sent to the statutory legal notice which document has been admittedly received by the petitioner where it has been pointed out by the respond....