CO. PET. 340/2010 Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment reserved on : 14 December 2023

Judgment pronounced on : 30 January 2024

+

CO.PET. 340/2010

M/S MAA TARINI MINERALS

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Arunav Patnaik and Mr.

Nirbhay Nitya Nanda, Advs.

versus

M/S TECHNICAST ENGINEERS LTD.

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Anil Sapra, Mr. P. K.

Bansal and Mr. Adhish Sharma,

Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

1.

This petition has been moved under Sections 433(e), 434 and

439 of The Companies Act, 1956 by the petitioner company, seeking

winding up of the respondent company, namely Technicast

Engineers Pvt. Ltd., predicated on the non-payment of an amount of

Rs. 1,01,61,225/- by the respondent, which is due to the petitioner

company.

2.

Briefly stated, the petitioner company is engaged in the business

of mining and raising lumpy Iron Ore at Inganijaharan Mines, Joda.

While on the other hand, the respondent company is involved in

various activities related to Ferrous and Non-ferrous casting, forgings,

fabrication and engineering assembly of machinery and equipment as

well as spare parts in all kinds of engineering industries.

BRIEF FACTS:

3.

The broad conspectus of the factual matrix is that the

respondent company entered into an agreement with one M/s. Bhanja

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

KUMAR VATS

Signing Date:31.01.2024

20:33:12

Signature Not Verified

CO. PET. 340/2010 Page 2 of 7

Minerals Private Limited, the original lease holder of the mines, as a

contractor for raising iron ore and further for deploying necessary

personnel and machinery for the purpose of such raising. Thereafter,

the respondent company entered into an agreement dated 20.06.2003

with the petitioner company engaging them as a sub-contractor for a

period of three months, w.e.f. 01.07.2003. The agreement was further

extended vide letter dated 30.10.2003 for a period of three years,

w.e.f. 01.10.2003.

4.

The agreement as well as the letter dated 30.10.2003 set out the

relevant terms and conditions for payments to be made by the

respondent company to the petitioner in accordance with the quantities

of ore raised at different prices. Furthermore, in order to fulfil its

obligations under the agreement, the petitioner deployed men and

machineries at the site and raised monthly weigh bills in keeping with

the weigh reports from the weigh bridge, which the respondent

company was to settle within 15 days of submission.

5.

The long and short of the matter is that the petitioner carried out

its obligations till 05.05.2006, when unexpectedly and without reason,

vide a letter of the same date, the respondent cancelled the work order

of the petitioner. At that point, even after several representations by

the petitioner, the respondent company failed to pay the dues owed to

the petitioner, and withheld payment of Rs. 1,01,61,225/-. It has been

stated that various representations were made by the petitioner on

04.05.2006, 22.05.2006 and 06.06.2006. Thereafter, a settlement was

also arrived at before the Deputy Director of Mines (DDM), Joda

Circle, Joda, Keonjhar in a meeting held on 31.05.2006, and the same

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

KUMAR VATS

Signing Date:31.01.2024

20:33:12

Signature Not Verified

CO. PET. 340/2010 Page 3 of 7

was recorded vide the petitioner’s letter dated 14.06.2006. Subsequent

to this, the petitioner also sent letters dated 09.07.2006 and 04.08.2006

to the respondent, however the dues remained unpaid.

6.

Given that the status quo remained unchanged, the petitioner

w