IMPORTANT POINT
Acknowledgement sent by e-mail is a valid acknowledgment in eye of law.

Aravind Kumar, J. —Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

2. This petition is filed ‘under sections

433(e),(1) and 436 read with section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent Company on the ground that it is unable to pay debt due to petitioner.

3. Petitioner is a licensed Custom House Agent and also an IATA accredited international freight forwarding agent. Respondent company is engaged in the manufacture, sales and distribution of scrubbing or drying machines and all kinds of industrial or domestic vacuum pumps.

4. During the period September 2008 to November 2008 at the request of respondent, petitioner had carried four consignments by shipment which were covered by four Bills of Lading. Pursuant to said service extended by petitioner company it has raised invoices on 09.09.2008, 31.10.2008 and 01.11.2008 (2 Nos.) for a total sum of Rs.4,39,313/- on the respondent Company. Copies of these four invoices are at Annexure-A. On account of non payment of the amounts due under these invoices by respondent to the petitioner there was exchange of correspondence by e-mail between the parties. Respondent company by its e-mail dated 14.01.2010 has informed the petitioner that on account of delay in tie up of its funds payments were not made and respondent has also informed the petitioner that it would be sending its statement of accounts for reconciliation and will make arrangements of funds to pay the dues of the petitioner. Subsequently on 06.04.2010 there was one more e-mail from respondent to petitioner whereunder it has categorically admitted that it is in a position to make a commitment of settling the dues of the petitioner starting from the said month. It is also agreed to thereunder that first payment would be made between 10th and 15th of the said month namely April, 2010. Respondent has also categorically stated that it would clear all the dues by the end of May, 2010. Having said so, respondent did not pay the amounts to the petitioner and as such a statutory notice came to be issued by the petitioner on 04.12.2012 -Annexure-L and on receipt of the same it was admitted in the reply issued by the respondent that certain amounts are due by it to the petitioner. However, the quantum of amount due as claimed by the petitioner came to be doubted by the respondent. Said reply notice was followed-up by the petitioner by issuance of a rejoinder on 08.01.2003 whereunder it asserted the total outstanding amount due and payable by respondent was Rs 4,39,313/-. There is no further reply by the respondent to this rejoinder. Thereafter petitioner has approached this court on 10.01.2013 by filing present petition for winding up of respondent company.

5. On issuance of notice of this petition respondent appeared and filed its statement of objections. It is specifically contended by the respondent that for want of reconciliation of accounts matter could not be settled. It is also contended that freight charges are excessively billed. However, respondent did not dispute the fact that it is not liable to pay to the petitioner amounts claimed under four invoices referred to above. On account of certain minor differences between the petitioner and respondent relating to reconciliation of accounts, this Court felt that parties should sit together and reconcile their accounts and arrive at the actual amount due and payable by respondent to petitioner so as to enable this Court to pass further orders in the matter. Pursuant to same, petitioner and respondent have held a conference on 06.05.2013 for reconciliation of accounts. Thereafter matter was listed on 04.06.2013 and plea of the respondent that there has been ‘extra billing’ or ‘twice billing’ was examined by this Court and by order dated 04.06.2013 said contention came to be negatived for the reasons assigned therein. However, to afford one more opportunity to the respondent to pay the amounts due and payable to petitioner as reconciled and