- (1.) At the time of moving the winding up petition it appears that the company is unable to take steps for the payment of the price of the goods sold and delivered until it gained some importance after the affidavit-in-opposition as well as the supplementary affidavits is used by the company. The winding up petition proceeds on the basis of the confirmation of balance issued by the company on January 21, 2010 and the statutory notice was also based upon such confirmation. The reply which the company gave to such statutory notice does not reveal any correspondences made between the petitioning-creditor and the company before the issuance of the statutory notice. However the confirmation of balance issued by the company was admitted in the reply with the explanation that the same was issued on a clear understanding that the petitioning-creditor shall make good and/or replace the inferior qualities of material supplied in terms of the various purchase orders. The affidavit-in-opposition to the said winding up petition which came on April 4, 2013, contains various correspondences made between the petitioner and the company relating to supply of defective materials and inability on the part of the petitioner to replace the same which not only caused loss of business to the company but the company also incurred financial loss as certain amounts had been deducted from the bills raised by the company to its intending purchasers. A dispute is sought to be raised by the company on the plea that the supply of the inferior quality of the goods was made by the petitioner, though the company has admitted the outstanding dues to the petitioner in the said confirmation letter. The petitioner had denied the aforesaid letters to have been communicated to it and specifically took the stand that those letters are not genuine and their existence is doubtful.
(2.) To contradict such objection, a supplementary affidavit is affirmed by the company containing several electronic mails of the similar nature which according to the company have not been denied by the petitioner.
(3.) The statutory notice was issued on March 22, 2012 and the reply was made on April 25, 2012, by the company. All the electronic mails which the company intended to rely, have echoed the stand of the company that because of the defective materials being supplied their corresponding buyers have refused to make payments as the same has not been replaced in spite of several reminders. Curiously enough, not a single scrap of paper is forthcoming wherefrom it could be gathered that the company has ever asked the petitioner to replace the defective goods or the description of the defective goods are indicated. All the mails have proceeded as indicated above that because of the non-replacement of the defective goods, the corresponding buyer has not made the payment to the company and the company has suffered loss.;