Full Judgment
V.K. Singhal, J.
1. This petition has been filed for winding up of Deep Special Steels Ltd. under Section 439 read with Sections 438 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, on the ground that the said company has neglected to make the payment of a sum of Rs. 2,54,061.60 in respect of Bill No. GC 192, dated October 29, 1992 and Bill No. GC 196, dated October 20, 1992. Besides this interest was also claimed. A notice which was sent on November 16, 1994, by registered post has also been submitted along with other correspondence.
2. The respondents have come with the plea that the order was for 66cast iron moulds at the rate as specifically mentioned in the purchaseorder dated October 20, 1992, and the petitioner-company has suppliedthe material which was not of specification. The inspection which wasrequired under the terms of the order was also not carried on. Insteadof cast iron moulds rough-casting unmachined moulds were supplied 44in quantity against the order of 66. The machining was not done of themoulds. According to the respondents they had already informed that thegoods are not according to specification. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that saving gram dated November 2, 1992, has not beenreceived.
3. I have considered over the matter. In the present case it cannot be considered that there was any amount due which was admitted to be due and payable.
4. Whatever the supplies were made against the order prima facie a dispute is there as to whether the goods are according to specification or not. The correspondence which has been placed on record by the petitioner is one sided only. Even the legal notice which was alleged to have beensent through the advocate on December 21, 1993, which is referred to in annexure-9 has not been furnished. The direction for winding up or admitting the petition for that purpose could have been given if there was an admitted liability which the respondent-company neglected to pay. The claim on the basis of two bills Nos. 192 and 196 as mentioned above is not admitted by any of the document by the respondents and on the contrary they have come with the clear case that the goods are not of required specification.
5. In these circumstances, I consider that the claim of the petitioner is a disputed one for which it is not appropriate to entertain the petition for winding up.