- (1.) This appeal would relate to supply of goods. At the end of the day, the outstanding was of Rs. 8,22,729.34 that the company failed to pay. The appellant-company once paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in protanto satisfaction of the claim of the respondent but the cheque was dishonoured for nonpayment as we find from page 87 of the paper book. Be that as it may, for the outstanding of Rs. 8,22,729.34 the respondent issued a notice of demand that the appellant-company replied denying their obligation to pay. The learned advocate would contend, the goods were of sub-standard and inferior quality and the statement of account as on December 31, 2009, showing a balance sum of Rs. 8,22,729.34 was sent on the understanding, as would appear from pages 20-23 of the paper book, the respondent would replace the inferior quality goods by "standard quality". The respondent was not satisfied with the reply. They filed a winding up petition that the appellant contested by filing affidavit-in-opposition. In the affidavit-in-opposition the company annexed a host of correspondences that did not find mention in the advocate's letter of reply. The respondent categorically denied the existence of those correspondences. According to them, those were fake and manufactured, to put up a sham defence to the admitted claim of the respondent. The company filed supplementary affidavit disclosing e-mails that the petitioner did not specifically deny. However, on going through the e-mails nothing much turned on that, at least the learned single judge (GE India Industrial P. Ltd. v. Venus Controls and Switchgear P. Ltd., 2014 186 CompCas 348) was not impressed. His Lordship held, the company had no bona fide defence, while admitting the winding up petition for the said sum along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Hence, this appeal by the appellant.
(2.) At the admission stage the Division Bench directed the appellant/company to deposit the amount that they did. Today we have heard the parties on the appeal.
(3.) Ms. Manju Bhutoria, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would base her argument on the strength of the security that the company furnished. Drawing an analogy from sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, she would contend, following the practice of this court, the company, to show their bona fides, offered to secure the claim before the learned single judge as well as before the Division Bench. The learned single judge did not permit the company to secure the claim that the Division Bench did. The company is thus entitled to pray for relegation of the dispute for a regular trial on merits.;