Jayant Nath, J. - (1.) The present petition is filed under Sections 433 (e) 434(a) and 439(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent company.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that a rejoinder has been filed. However, the record of this court shows no rejoinder has been filed. Learned senior counsel for respondent submits that a copy of the rejoinder filed by the petitioner has been received by the respondent. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the rejoinder. The same is taken on record. Registry may scan the same and place it on record.
(3.) The case of the petitioner is that sometime in 2001, NTPC was planning to set up power plants in India to further increase their power generation capacity. The respondent company was planning to expand its base in India. The parties accordingly entered into a consultancy agreement dated 20.08.2003 whereby the petitioner company agreed to provide professional services for advising the respondent company regarding the NTPC contracts. Clause 4 of the agreement provided a consultancy fee of Rs.12,65,69,100/-. Fifty per cent of the amount was payable in the beginning. This amount has admittedly been received by the petitioner. The dispute pertains to the balance 50 per cent fees. As payments were not received by the petitioner despite the fact that the respondent have received their payments from NTPC, the petitioner issued a demand notice under Section 434 of Companies Act on 05.07.2016 seeking payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 6,32,84,566/-. The respondent did not pay. Hence the present winding up petition.;