SUNIL AMBWANI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Manish Nigam for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Agarwal holding brief of Sri. R.P. Agarwal for the respondent -company.
(2.) IN this creditors winding up petition notice were issued on February 25, 1999. The respondent -company has filed a counter affidavit. Sri S.P. Agarwal made preliminary objection namely that the notice of demand under Section 434(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, was not served upon the respondent -company and that the petition has not been filed by a person duly authorised by the respondent -company. I do not find substance in both the preliminary objections inasmuch as there is clear assertion that the notice was sent by registered post at theregistered office of the company. There is no denial of sending the notice, and further there is no denial that the notice was not received by the respondent -company. The person filing winding up petition is the director of the petitioner -company. There is no objection in paragraph 2 to the counter -affidavit that he is not authorised by the board of directors to file winding up petition.
(3.) IT is alleged that the petitioner -company supplied brass sheets to the respondent -company. The initial supplies made vide bill Nos. 79, 80 and 85 in August, 1996, were admitted to be received by the respondent -company. Thereafter supplies were made vide bill Nos. 97, 183, 192 and 198 for which the petitioner -company received all the dues. The business relations continued up to September 4, 1977.;