SANJIB BANERJEE, J. - (1.) The appellant insists that a Company Court in receipt of a creditor's winding-up petition does not have the authority to impose any condition while relegating the claim to a suit. For such proposition, the appellant relies on two recent and, apparently, yet unreported judgments of the Supreme Court.
(2.) The respondent applied, inter alia, under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the company to be wound up on its failure or negligence to pay an undisputed debt. The respondent rendered services to the appellant by carrying out some construction at an office complex. The respondent duly raised bills for the works in accordance with an agreement between the parties. The respondent claimed that a balance principal sum of about Rs. 7.90 lakh remained due and owing from the appellant herein after giving credit to the monies paid by the appellant.
(3.) There were two statutory notices which were issued on behalf of the respondent. In response to one of such statutory notices, the appellant, inter alia, alleged that some of the work was left abandoned and incomplete and other parts of the work executed by the respondent were "sub-standard and unsatisfactory." In the affidavit affirmed by the appellant before the Company Court, it was alleged that the final bill had not been raised by the respondent; that there was a person by the name of Ajit Jain who was entrusted to do the job by the appellant and it was Ajit Jain who had engaged the contractor on behalf of the appellant and in the absence of Ajit Jain or such person certifying the bills for payment, there was no question of the appellant entertaining the bills.;