SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) Disputed questions of fact arise in this creditor's winding-up petition which cannot be conveniently assessed on affidavit evidence in summary proceedings.
(2.) The claim of the petitioning creditor is that upon a work contract being issued, the company commenced the job of fabrication and erection relating to ground piping at the Indian Oil Corporation's Panipat site. The work order was of a value of Rs. 2,42,13,290/-. Though the value of the work was subsequently scaled down, the petitioner claims that men and machines of the company were deployed at the site and the company withdrew thereafter without intimation to the petitioner and for no justifiable cause. The petitioner says that men and agents of the company had to be paid off by the petitioner to enable the petitioner to complete the work for its client. The claim in the present proceedings is in respect of the expenses incurred by the petitioner in settling the claims of the men and agents of the company since the company did not pay them. The petitioner says that without such persons being paid, it would not have been possible for the petitioner to take up the execution of the contract and the petitioner was in considerable embarrassment since the ultimate client would have been jeopardised in the further delay of the project.
(3.) Though the company did not reply to the statutory notice of April 27, 2010, it has been indicated in its affidavit that the payments allegedly made by the petitioner cannot be claimed from the company since the company was not obliged to make such payments to the persons said to have received the same from the petitioner. The company also suggests that it has a substantial counter-claim in respect of the partial work done at the site. The company complains that further work could not be carried out in view of the unreasonable stand taken by the petitioner and the impediments put to the company executing the work.;