Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) The winding up petition has simply proceeded on the basis of default in payment of the price of the coal supplied to the company. Two invoices are annexed to this winding up petition evidencing the goods so supplied which according to the petitioners was received by the company by putting the rubber seal and signature. The petitioner also annexed the confirmation of accounts dated 1st April 2011 confirming the balance by the company by putting the rubber seal and the signature and the date at the footnote. The statutory notice is also served on the company. The acknowledgement due card bears the rubber seal and signature. According to the petitioner, it is indisputed that the supplies were made to the company who after receiving the same avoided the payment.
(2.) The company admittedly did not reply to this statutory notice. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the company reveals the defences taken against the alleged claim of the petitioning creditor. It would be relevant to narrate the excerpts of the defences taken by the company in the affidavit. The company at the very outset took a plea that the rubber seal and the signature appended on the purported tax invoices and the confirmation of an account do not bear the actual seal of the company and the signature of its officials. The company has gone further to say that those are fabricated and /or manufactured ones. The company further says that the manufacturing unit of the company at Matkambeda, Barbil, Orissa was leased out to one Expo Minerals Pvt. Ltd. who ran the said factory till 12th May 2010 and the company resumed the control and management of the said manufacturing unit on and from 13th May 2010.
(3.) It would further be borne out from the said affidavit that two letters were caused on the said Expo Mineral Pvt. Ltd. by the company concerning the demand of the petitioning creditor with a clear stipulation that if any liability exits the same to be paid by the said lessee.;