R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 25-6-1999 passed by the Company Judge in Company Petition No. 173 of 1999 disposing of the said company petition filed by the appellant under Section 434 read with Section 433 (e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 with the following observations:"in my opinion, since the respondent-company has not acknowledged the debts due to the petitioner-company, it is clear that there is a serious dispute with regard to the payment and nonpayment of the amounts due. In my opinion, a winding up petition is not a proper mode of enforcing a bona fide disputed debt. Petitioner-company is well-advised to approach the appropriate Civil court for redressal of all its grievances".

( 2 ) THE appellant contends that it is a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore and the respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant claims to have sold and supplied equipment of the value of US Dollars 67,636 to the respondent under Invoice No. 70025485, dated 3-4-1988, in pursuance of respondent's purchase order dated 24-12-1997. The appellant alleges that the respondent has taken delivery of the goods supplied under the said invoice, but has failed to pay the amount due in spite of the repeated demands.

( 3 ) IN response to the letter dated 20-3-1999 sent by the appellant demanding payment, the respondent sent the following reply dated 24-3-1999:"we acknowledge the receipt of your letter March 3, 1999 asking us to release payment of USD 67,636. 00 by 20th of March, 1999. In this connection, please note that as per our books there is no amount outstanding for payment to Synopsys. We have also informed your local associates M/s. D'gipro accordingly".

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the appellant, the liability has been untenably denied. It is alleged that the respondent had taken delivery of equipment supplied under two earlier invoices dated 3-2-1998 and 18-2-1998 and paid for them. On the other hand, in regard to the last supply under invoice dated 3-4-1998, the amount has been withheld without any reason. The appellant therefore, claims to have issued a statutory notice dated 5-5-1999 under Sections 433 (e) and 434 of the Companies Act through the counsel. As there was no response, the appellant filed a petition for winding up, in June 1999. When the matter came up for orders before the learned Company Judge on 25-6-1999, the learned Company Judge disposed of the petition as stated above, without even directing notice to the respondent.

( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. The appellant contends that the learned Company Judge had committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there is a bona fide dispute merely on the basis of the reply dated 24-3-1999 from the respondent, without examining the facts in detail and ignoring the fact that Statutory Notice dated 5-5-1999 has not been replied. The appellant has also contended that the learned Company Judge has also failed to satisfy himself whether respondent had prime facie proof of the facts on which its defence depended and liability was denied, before deciding whether there is a bona fide dispute regarding the debt or not. It is contended that where the creditor has placed material relating to supply (purchase order and invoice), mere denial of the claim, does not amount to bona fide dispute; and that unless the respondent demonstrates how the claim for supplies made was not tenable or that the amount claimed has been paid, the Company Court should ignore the denial and proceed on the basis that the respondent-company was unable to pay its debts. According to the appellant, the Company Judge had relegated the appellant-creditor to the Civil Court, without application of mind as to whether there really existed a dispute.

( 6 ) THE appellant did not produce the balance-sheet or any other documents to show that the respondent was in financial difficulties or that it ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document