2018 (9) TMI 1391

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e application, the company remains unrepresented. Accordingly, the application is taken up for hearing in the absence of the company. The short facts urged by the petitioner in support of its claim for winding up of the company are that by an agreement dated October 6, 2009 entered into between the parties herein, the company engaged the petitioner for designing, erecting, supplying and commissioning of one number Air Cooled Condenser (hereinafter referred as the "ACC Unit") for 15 MW Captive Power Plant at Chandil in the State of Jharkhand. The said agreement was followed by the letter of intent dated October, 2009 issued by the company to the petitioner. The total contractual value of the said agreement dated October 6, 2009 was for Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... said notice dated April 15, 2014 was received by the company. By a letter dated May 12, 2014 the company through its Advocate replied to the said statutory notice of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner did not complete the commissioning of the said ACC Unit within the stipulated period of 15 months from the date of the said agreement and it had to deploy its own people to complete the job, which caused immense delay in commissioning of the said ACC unit. In the said letter the company referred to a legal notice dated February 17, 2011 served upon the petitioner calling upon it to complete the entire supply immediately so that the company should not face any problem due to the delay/laches on the part of the petitioner. In the said ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ain any admission by the company to pay the amount claimed by the petitioner in this application. Considering all these facts, I find it difficult to conclude that the petitioner had performed its obligation under the said agreement dated October 6, 2009 within time or that the defence put up by the company in its letter dated May 12, 2014 lacks bona fide. Though , in the application the petitioner has denied to have received the notice dated February 17, 2011 but in the facts of the present case, as discussed above all the issues, including the one with regard to receipt of the said notice has to be decided after considering the evidence of the parties by the competent civil Court in a suit. At this juncture, it is to be noted that o....