Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dee Print Asia vs Curefast Remedies Ltd. on 24 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: [1999]98COMPCAS90(P&H)
JUDGMENT N.K.Sodhi, J.
1. This is a creditor's petition filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act"), for the winding up of Curefast Remedies Ltd., with its registered office at Ludhiana (hereinafter called "the company") on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts.
2. The company planned a public issue of its equity shares in March, 1993, and the same opened on March 26, 1993. The petitioner firm through its sole proprietor, Shri Deepak Seem, was given a contract for the printing and distribution of public issue stationery including forms, brochures, prospectus and bank schedule pads, etc. It is claimed by the petitioner that the work of printing and distribution was completed to the satisfaction of the respondent-company and a bill for the work done was submitted to it. It is alleged that one Mr. Vinod, an employee of the company, was deputed to supervise the printing and distribution work and was constantly working in the premises of the petitioner to ensure that the material was not only printed in time but despatched to different stations. It is further claimed that after the closure of the public issue on March 30, 1993, the said Shri Vinod, on behalf of the company, wrote a handwritten letter on April 6, 1993, to the petitioner thanking the petitioner for the work done. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a total bill for the work done amounting to Rs. 23,43,536.75. It is admitted that the company had paid a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs till March 15, 1993. Thus, the total amount due to the petitioner as claimed by it comes to Rs. 11,43,536.75. According to the petitioner, the balance amount has not been paid and in spite of a statutory notice having been served on the company under Section 434 of the Act, it has failed/neglected to pay/adjust the same to the satisfaction of the petitioner. Hence, this petition for winding up.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the company the amount claimed by the petitioner is disputed and it is stated that the petition is an abuse of the process of the court. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner gave its quotation for the printing and distribution of the public issue stationery for the company which was accepted by the latter and that the terms of payment were also accepted. The so called acknowledgment said to have been issued by Shri Vinod, an employee of the company, has been denied and it is stated that no such acknowledgment could have been given on behalf of the company because the services provided by the petitioner were defective, deficient and unsatisfactory as a result whereof the public issue was not fully subscribed and the company suffered irreparable loss. It is also alleged by the company that the bill raised by the petitioner is highly inflated. It is further stated that a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was advanced to the petitioner but it has neither printed stationery nor has that amount been paid back. Similarly, another sum of Rs. 4.50 lakhs is said to have been advanced to Shikha Printers-a sister concern of the petitioner, and that concern too did not supply any printed stationery nor has refunded that amount. The company in fact claims a refund of this amount from the petitioner and its sister concern. A large number of documents have been filed showing as to how the printing work done by the petitioner was deficient.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and without examining each and every document produced by the company in support of its defence, I am of the view that the amount claimed by the petitioner is bona fide disputed by it and that the defence put up by the company is not an excuse to hide its inability to pay the amount. There is not enough material on the record for this court to hold that the amount as claimed by the petitioner is definitely due from the company. The disputed questions raised by the company in its defence cannot be gone into in the present proceedings without a regular trial of those issues.
5. In the result, the petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue its remedies in a civil court. If the petitioner files a suit for the recovery of the amount claimed by it the company will within thirty days from the date of service in the suit furnish security to the satisfaction of the trial court for the amount claimed in the suit.
6. No costs.