Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No.235 of 2012 whereby, the said petition filed for winding up of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (for brevity, ‘the APIIC’), was admitted and advertisement thereof was permitted to be carried out in the event the APIIC failed to deposit the sum of Rs.8,18,36,584/- to the credit of the company petition within a time frame. Aggrieved thereby, the APIIC preferred this appeal.

2. By order dated 06.11.2014, the appeal was admitted and interim stay of operation of the order under appeal was granted for a period of six weeks. The said stay was extended until further orders on 18.12.2014. Application No.7 of 2015 was filed by the respondent, the petitioner in C.P.No.235 of 2012, to vacate the interim order dated 06.11.2014. Thereupon, this Court was informed on 22.06.2015 that the APIIC was attempting to make payment of the admitted amount due and the case was accordingly adjourned. Again, on 07.12.2015, the learned Advocate General appearing for the APIIC sought time to secure instructions as to deposit of the money due to the respondent. On a similar plea, the case was again adjourned on 29.12.2015. However, as no amicable settlement materialized between the parties and comprehensive arguments were advanced by both sides, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

3. The case of the respondent herein, M/s. IHP-MEIL-KEEPBRCPL-TAIPPL, a joint venture, represented by its partner in-charge, M/s.Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited, Mumbai, the petitioner in C.P.No.235 of 2012, was as under:

The APIIC, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1956’), with its registered office at Parishrama Bhavan, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad, invited tenders for implementing the ‘Somasila Drinking Water Supply Scheme’, whereby drinking water supply to Kadapa was proposed to be augmented. As the tender conditions permitted participation of joint ventures, the company petitioner joint venture was formed under agreement dated 28.07.2008 and it submitted its bid which was found to be the lowest and the APIIC accordingly awarded the contract in its favour. The company petitioner entered into an agreement with the APIIC on 24.09.2008. Under this agreement, the company petitioner was to undertake manufacturing, supplying, lowering, laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of 2200 millimetre dia MS pumping main with cement mortar factory in-lining and out-coating and other appurtenance from the proposed intake well near old Madhavaram on the foreshore of Somasila Reservoir to the proposed sump at Kanumalonipally on Kadapa-Rajampet Highway, including maintenance and operation for a period of 24 months (defect liability period) under Package-I. The approximate value of the work to be done was Rs.267,38,71,778/-. The stipulated period for completing the project was 12 months. The company petitioner furnished five bank guarantees equivalent to 2½% of the contract value valid till completion of the original defect liability period. The company petitioner also submitted bank guarantees for a mobilization advance of Rs.26,75,03,538/-, but the APIIC failed to remit the mobilization advance, resulting in expiry of these bank guarantees. However, as the APIIC assured the company petitioner that prompt payment of bills would be made, it was persuaded to commence the work without a mobilization advance and executed work of the value of more than Rs.15.00 crore against supply of pipes and Rs.25.00 lakh against execution of civil work. According to the company petitioner, as per Clause 68 of the agreement, Running Account (RA) bills raised by it for the work executed were to be paid within 14 days from the date when such bills were raised. The company petitioner claimed that it submitted two RA bills for a net am