Full Text
Translation output
#36 $-, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CO. PET. 418/2011
VENU ENGINEERS Petitioner
Through Mr. Kumar Kartikeya, Advocate
CO. PET. 418/2011
VENU ENGINEERS Petitioner
Through Mr. Kumar Kartikeya, Advocate
VERSUS
ZOOM VALLABH STEEL LTD. .....Respondent
Through None
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
28.09.2011
28.09.2011
CO. APPL. 2008/2011
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CO. APPL. 2009/2011
Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in re-filing the petition stands condoned.
Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in re-filing the petition stands condoned.
Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
CO. PET. 418/2011 & CO. APPL. 2007/2011
Present winding up petition has been filed under Section 433(e) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 stating
CO. PET. 41812011 Page 1 of3 2011:DHC:9162 ryl that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts allegedly amounting to Z 24,84,896/-.
It is the petitioner's case that it has raised four running bills for work done by it from time to time for which it was entitled to be paid.
The detail of the four bills is as under:- Si. No. Bill Dated Amount
(In_)
17/01/2009 32,19,440/- 17/02/2009 10,12,011/-
06/05/2009 7,66,603/- 05/06/2009 6,66,741/- Total 56,64,795/-
It has been stated in the petition that out of the total outstanding, petitioner has received the following amounts:-
Present winding up petition has been filed under Section 433(e) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 stating
CO. PET. 41812011 Page 1 of3 2011:DHC:9162 ryl that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts allegedly amounting to Z 24,84,896/-.
It is the petitioner's case that it has raised four running bills for work done by it from time to time for which it was entitled to be paid.
The detail of the four bills is as under:- Si. No. Bill Dated Amount
(In_)
17/01/2009 32,19,440/- 17/02/2009 10,12,011/-
06/05/2009 7,66,603/- 05/06/2009 6,66,741/- Total 56,64,795/-
It has been stated in the petition that out of the total outstanding, petitioner has received the following amounts:-
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Sl. No. By RTGS dated Amount │
│ (In) │
│ 18/02/2009 23,73,950/- │
│ 19/03/2009 6,55,979/- │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 0 04/05/2009 1,49,970/- │
│ Total 31,79,899/- │
│ Consequently, according to the petitioner, there is a total │
│ outstanding of Z 24,84,896/-. │
│ However, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be │
│ possible to decide the present matter in the summary jurisdiction that │
│ CO. PET. 41812011 Page 2 of 3 │
│ 2011:DHC:9162 │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
│ Sl. No. By RTGS dated Amount │
│ (In) │
│ 18/02/2009 23,73,950/- │
│ 19/03/2009 6,55,979/- │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 0 04/05/2009 1,49,970/- │
│ Total 31,79,899/- │
│ Consequently, according to the petitioner, there is a total │
│ outstanding of Z 24,84,896/-. │
│ However, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be │
│ possible to decide the present matter in the summary jurisdiction that │
│ CO. PET. 41812011 Page 2 of 3 │
│ 2011:DHC:9162 │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
decide the present matter in the summary jurisdiction that
CO. PET. 41812011 Page 2 of3 it exercises. The present proceedings would require determination of issues of facts, after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence, especially when mutual obligations are to be performed by both the parties under the Agreement for Civil and Structural Job of Seamless
Tube Plan. In any event, there is no admission of the amount due as claimed in the present petition.
Accordingly, the present petition and application are dismissed with liberty to petitioner to file appropriate recovery proceedings in accordance with law.
Needless to say that this order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Further, the competent authority/court is directed to decide the said case on merits without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.
ILJ
MANMOff7,J SEPTEMBER 289 2011 rn CO. PET 41812011 Page 3 of3
CO. PET. 41812011 Page 2 of3 it exercises. The present proceedings would require determination of issues of facts, after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence, especially when mutual obligations are to be performed by both the parties under the Agreement for Civil and Structural Job of Seamless
Tube Plan. In any event, there is no admission of the amount due as claimed in the present petition.
Accordingly, the present petition and application are dismissed with liberty to petitioner to file appropriate recovery proceedings in accordance with law.
Needless to say that this order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Further, the competent authority/court is directed to decide the said case on merits without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.
ILJ
MANMOff7,J SEPTEMBER 289 2011 rn CO. PET 41812011 Page 3 of3
JUDGMENT