2019 (1) TMI 981

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the entire work to the satisfaction of the respondent and invoices for Rs. 80,46,429.48/- were raised. The Architect of the respondent company Innovation Architect and Interior Designers approved the bill of Rs. 79,87,515/- and issued an appropriate certificate. It is stated that despite the approval, verification and certification of the bill by the approved Architect of the respondent company necessary payment has not been made.  On 22.9.2011 statutory legal notice was served on the respondent company but there was no response. 2. Respondents have filed their reply. In the reply they have completely denied all the contents of the petition. In addition, it is pleaded that there was an earlier work order dated 11.6.2007 which was is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by him and certified and he stated that the additions and alterations in the final bill annexed with the company petition as Annexure 4 are in his own handwriting and that the bills in respect of the project were certified by him. 7. The Architect is appointed by the respondent. It follows from the certificate given by the Architect that the Architect was duly satisfied about the work done by the petitioner. Respondents have falsely and mischievously sought to deny the certificate given by their own Architect. 8. The other argument which has been raised by the respondent pertains to an earlier work order dated 11.6.2007. The plea is that this work order does not find mention in the present winding up petition but the petitioner accepts t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; In fact these glitches appear to pertain to first contract dated 11.06.2007. That apart, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner did not finally complete the work or that the respondent had to get the defective work corrected from some third contractor. It is clear that the defence raised by the respondent is not bona fide. 11. Reference in this context may be had to the judgement of the Supreme Court in IBA Health (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Info-Drive Systems Sdn.Bhd., (2010) (4) CompLJ 481 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:- "17. The question that arises for consideration is that when there is a substantial dispute as to liability, can a creditor prefer an application for winding-up for discharge of that liability? In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as well as in the Delhi Gazette, at least 14 days prior to the next date of hearing. 14. Petitioner shall deposit a sum Rs. 75,000/- towards cost of the publication with the Official Liquidator within 2 weeks, subject to any further amounts that may be called for by the liquidator for this purpose, if required. The Official Liquidator shall also endeavour to prepare a complete inventory of all the assets of the respondent-company when the same are taken over; and the premises in which they are kept shall be sealed by him. At the same time, he may also seek the assistance of a valuer to value all assets to facilitate the process of winding up. It will also be open to the Official Liquidator to seek police help in the discharge of his duties....