HIND TECHNO MACHINES PVT LTD Vs. JAIPUR WIRE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 433 read with Sections 439B of the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner, M/s. Hind Techno Machines Pvt. Ltd. has prayed that the respondent Company M/s. Jaipur Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd, be ordered to be wound up by this Court.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and may be stated thus: The petitioner is a Pvt. Ltd. Co. registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company deals in wire rods. The respondent is also a company incorporated as a private limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of the orders placed by the respondent company to the petitioner, the petitioner supplied different quantities of wire rods against bills as detailed below: Bill No. 196 -dated 21 -1 -1984; Bill No. 198 -dated 24 -1 -1984;Bill No. 215 -dated 4 -2 -1984; Bill No. 221 -dated 15 -2 -1984;Bill No. 231 -dated 28 -2 -1984; Bill No. 241 -dated 12 -3 -1984;Bill No. 252 -dated 22 -3 -1984; and Bill No. 274 -dated 12 -4 -1984.

(3.) A notice to show cause was issued to the respondent Company as to why the petition be not admitted and published. In response to the show cause notice, the non -petitioner filed a reply in which it is contended that no case is made out by the petitioner for filing a petition for winding up of the Company. It is also stated that the petitioner is not a creditor; but in fact, the respondent Company has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,53,667.25 from the petitioner. It is also pleaded that the respondent Company has already filed a civil suit against the petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 19th March, 1987, in respect of the said transaction, which is the subject matter of winding up petition. The respondent Company has further pleaded that the petitioner had agreed to pay the balance of the claim money after adjusting the losses incurred by the answering respondent and even after such an understanding the petitioner did not pay the balance amount of losses incurred by the respondent Company. It is specifically pleaded by the respondent Company that 80 MT of mild steel wire rods were to be supplied, but out of the said quantity 45.805 MT was only supplied. It is further pleaded that as the petitioner has failed to pay the dues as per the terms of the agreement dated 4tb February, 1984, the respondent Company has filed a civil suit against the petitioner. The respondent Company also claims to have the balance supply of 34.195 MT from the petitioner in addition to the amount claimed in the civil suit. Thus, the sum and substance of the defence raised by the respondent Company is that as the petitioner failed to supply the material the respondent Company had a right to adjust Rs. 75,777.40 against the loss suffered due to non -supply of the mild steel wire rods by the petitioner as per the agreement. In the affidavit filed along with the reply, the respondent Company has stated that a civil suit has been filed for the recovery of Rs. 77,889.85 against the petitioner Company, and the petitioner company claims 34.195 MT of wire rods being the balance of the contracted material.