- (1.) THIS petition under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short " the Act"), has been filed against the respondent-company for passing a winding-up order. The facts first : The respondent-company, on April 26, 1985, invited tenders for the supply of HPDE bags. The petitioner submitted the tender on April 26, 1985, itself. On October 27, 1985, an agreement was arrived at between the parties for the supply of 1,50,000 HPDE bags. The agreement further stipulated that the respondent-company may have to supply 20% more as per the schedule of delivery. The rate was fixed at Rs. 5. 75 per bag. The respondent-company did not release the delivery schedule for the supply of HPDE bags. However, on the intervention of the then Chief Minister, Punjab, the delivery schedule was released to the petitioner on February 22, 1986, for the supply of 1,00,000 HPDE bags which was duly supplied. The respondent-company cancelled the agreement for the supply of the remaining 50,000 HPDE bags on February 22, 1986. Thereafter, the petitioner again represented to the then Chief Minister, Punjab, and under the directions of the Chief Minister, the Chairman of the respondent-company rescinded the order of cancellation and the petitioner supplied 50,000 HPDE bags. The petitioner supplied 60,000 HPDE bags at Hanumangarh to the respondent-company between September 11, 1986, and September 16, 1986. The petitioner had supplied 20 per cent. additional HPDE bags as provided in the agreement dated October 27, 1985. The payment of sale price was withheld.
(2.) IN the written statement filed by the respondent, it was, inter alia, pleaded that the respondent-company is in a very sound financial condition, it has got enough funds to pay the admitted and due debts and the annual turnover of the company is Rs. 25 crores and it is wholly unjust to say that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts. The respondent-company accepted the supply of 1,00,000 HPDE bags against payment. The petitioner supplied 60,000 HPDE bags instead of 50,000 HPDE bags at the works of the Corporation at Hanumangarh. At the time of delivery, it was made clear to the petitioner that the supply was not pursuant to the agreement and the rates would be settled subsequently. The petitioner did not approach the Corporation for the settlement of the rates for payment for the supply of extra HPDE bags.
(3.) ON May 27, 1988, learned counsel for the respondent handed over a cheque bearing No. 361467 for Rs. 2,44,166. 64 drawn on the Punjab and Sind Bank, Chandigarh, to learned counsel for the petitioner. The same was accepted pursuant to the order dated May 20, 1988, and the petition was posted for arguments on the limited question "whether direction as to the advertisement of the petition should be given ".;