Full Text
Translation output
$- HIGH COURT OF DELHI #27 cj
CO.PET. 381/2011
MIS. SHOBHITH ENGINEERING Petitioner
Through Mr. Abir Phukan, Advocate
CO.PET. 381/2011
MIS. SHOBHITH ENGINEERING Petitioner
Through Mr. Abir Phukan, Advocate
VERSUS
MIS. JHS SVENDGAARD HYGIENE PRODUCTS LTD Respondent
Through None
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
12.09.2011
12.09.2011
CO. APPL. 1871/2011
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CO. PET. 381/2011 & CO. APPL. 1870/2011
Present winding up petition has been filed under Section 43 3(e) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 stating that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts allegedly amounting to Z 10,71,088/-.
CO.PET. 38112011 Page 1 of2 2011:DHC:7659 Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a number of work orders including some verbal orders placed from time to time by respondent upon the petitioner. He submits that petitioner has complied with the said orders and has raised invoices totaling to
56571 1800/-. It is further stated that respondent has paid only a sum of Z 46100,000/- till date.
However, on a perusal of the paper book I find that the petitioner is only relying upon the purchase orders and petitioner's bills. There is no admission of debt by the respondent. Further, as the petitioner is relying on some verbal work orders and the case pertains to a running account, in my opinion, the present petition is not liable to be entertained in summary jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the present petition and application are dismissed with liberty to petitioner to file appropriate recovery proceedings in a competent court in accordance with law.
MANMOHA,J SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 rn CO.PET 38112011
2011:DHC:7659
Present winding up petition has been filed under Section 43 3(e) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 stating that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts allegedly amounting to Z 10,71,088/-.
CO.PET. 38112011 Page 1 of2 2011:DHC:7659 Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a number of work orders including some verbal orders placed from time to time by respondent upon the petitioner. He submits that petitioner has complied with the said orders and has raised invoices totaling to
56571 1800/-. It is further stated that respondent has paid only a sum of Z 46100,000/- till date.
However, on a perusal of the paper book I find that the petitioner is only relying upon the purchase orders and petitioner's bills. There is no admission of debt by the respondent. Further, as the petitioner is relying on some verbal work orders and the case pertains to a running account, in my opinion, the present petition is not liable to be entertained in summary jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the present petition and application are dismissed with liberty to petitioner to file appropriate recovery proceedings in a competent court in accordance with law.
MANMOHA,J SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 rn CO.PET 38112011
2011:DHC:7659
JUDGMENT