I.P.MUKERJI,J. - (1.) This is a winding up application coming up for admission. The petitioner is an importer as well as a domestic supplier. Two high seas sale agreements were entered into between the parties, on 3rd July, 2015 and 3rd September, 2015 by which the petitioner sold and delivered chemicals to the respondent company. The value of the contract dated 3rd July, 2015 was Rs.12,30,000/- whereas that of the contract dated 3rd September, 2015 was Rs.12,75,600/-. In addition to this a certain quantity of local chemicals were also supplied by the petitioner to the company.
(2.) The petitioner has relied upon a confirmation of account dated 5th October, 2015 for the period 1st April, 2015 to 30th September, 2015 being annexure-D at page 67 of the petition. It was signed by the parties. The respondent company is said to have confirmed that a sum of Rs.58,97,200/- was due and owing by them to the petitioner in transactions for the statement period, which included the subject transactions, except one. No dispute was raised by the company with regard to the delivery, quality or quantity of goods. There is no manner of doubt that the goods were received by them, accepted and appropriated to their use. On 12th January, 2016 the petitioner caused to be issued a statutory notice under Sections 433 , 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 to the company claiming an amount of Rs.54,89,076/- on account of price and Rs.2,90,192/- on account of interest @24% per annum charged after the payment due date for each invoice as specified in the said notice. It will appear from the invoices tabulated in this notice as unpaid, that all except the one dated 16th October, 2015, appear in the above statement of accounts. The invoice dated 16th October, 015, was beyond the statement period.
(3.) On 15th February, 2016 the company caused a reply to be made to this notice. A defence, which did not feature at any point of time after supply of the goods, was raised. They said that some of their employees were trying to run a rival business and that the petitioner was responsible for it or for aiding their employees to do so. One Manish Khanna, a director of the respondent company had been buying "materials" at a higher rate from the petitioner so as to cause loss to the respondent company and gain to the petitioner and their associates which included Manish Khanna, Shahil M. Shah and Mrs. Reena S. Shah. The last two persons were said to be directors of the petitioner. The goods were not received by the company, it was alleged.;