- (1.)AFTER having settled the matter with respondent company and after having received the amount towards full and final settlement from respondent company, vide its letters dated 26. 6. 1995 and 23. 8. 1995 (Annexures P-23 and P-24), appellant could not have raised any grievance with regard to further dues to be recovered from respondent company, Looking to financial status of respondent company through which it was passing at that time, all the creditors including appellant were given opportunity to liquidate their amount, provided it was prepared to accept fifty per cent of total amount due and outstanding against the respondent company. On such promise being made by respondent company, appellant received two drafts, got them encashed and did not take any action for a long period of four years. Only after lapse of time of almost four years, appellant company woke up from its deep slumber and served a notice on respondent company under the provisions of Companies Act, to pay the debt within a period of twenty one days from the date of notice, failing which a further threat was given to file a company petition. Naturally, the matter having been settled much before sending of statutory notices, served on respondent, respondent rightly did not reply to the same, which gave rise to appellant to file the company petition for winding up.
(2.)LEARNED Company Judge, after issuance of notice to respondent gave opportunity to it to file its reply. Respondent company raised aforesaid grounds and disputed its liability to pay dues, as alleged by appellant company, primarily, on the ground that the matter having been already settled between the parties, appellant cannot be allowed to claim any further amount. It further submitted that appellant had not taken any action for a period of four years after receiving the amount. Thus, it is precluded from claiming the said amount.
(3.)OBJECTIONS, as raised by respondent company, found favour with learned Company Judge who was pleased to dismiss the company petition of the appellant for winding up, for the reasons assigned by learned Single Judge in company petition. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that first of all -- it was not a debt; secondly, it could not be said that respondent company was unable to pay debts, and, thirdly, that respondent company had raised bona fide, and genuine dispute with regard to the amount claimed by appellant. On these grounds, the company petition of appellant came to be dismissed.