Ravi Swaroop Dhavan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Messrs Onkar Steels Private Limited, G.T. Road, Durgapur, a private limited company, claims itself to be a creditor of Messrs Triveni Structural Limited, Naini, Allahabad, registered under the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at Naini, Allahabad. It is contended in the petition that the petitioner is a creditor upon a sum of Rs. 63,893.59. This apparently is the claim the petitioner company has upon Messrs Triveni Structurals Limited for having accepted certain turn key jobs, the payment of which, it is alleged, has not been received by the company.
(2.) THE petitioner company gave a statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Annexure 1 to the petition) dated 3 May 1989. The reply is available in the counter affidavit which has been filed by Messrs Triveni Structurals Limited, this is Annexure C.A. 9 dated 10 June 1989. The reply to the notice has two main suggestions for the petitioner company. Messrs Triveni Structurals Limited indicated in its reply (a) that it is a Government of India under taking and is fully solvent to pay debts of the petitioner company if found due by arbitration and (b) between them issues could be resolved by arbitration as the parties are bound by an arbitration agreement. In so far as the first contention is concerned let it not be misunderstood that any company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is liable to be wound up and it does not matter if it is a company the shares of which for purposes of incorporation are held by a State Government or the Government of India. Should a creditor make out a case against such a company this court will not hesitate to pass an order for winding up.
(3.) IN so far as the other contention of Messrs Triveni Structurals Limited is concerned there is some substance in it and it cannot be overlooked. It is settled law that where parties have bound themselves by an arbitration agreement then their understanding resting on such an agreement is sacrosanct and the court will not permit a party to wriggle out of an arbitration agreement unless plausible and sufficient cause is shown under the law to do so, and that also before the appropriate court. In these circumstances, this court is of the opinion after having seen the record and having considered the contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, that the company petition is misconceived and parties make recourse to other remedies in law. The company petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Costs on parties.;