PREMIER ROAD CARRIERS LIMITED Vs. SIEMENS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court alleging that the company is indebted to the petitioner a sum of Rs.4,69,42,986/- on account of outstanding dues payable for services provided by the petitioner for transportation of the company's equipments from one place to another in India. Since 2006 the company has been availing the petitioners' services for the purpose of transportation of its equipments and in this regard from time to time entered into several contracts with the petitioner. The claim relates to 770 invoices which are unpaid. Admittedly, 67 invoices equivalent to principal amount of Rs.33,44,185/- is time barred though it is the case of the company that 97 invoices are time barred.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that they repeatedly called upon the company to make the payment including by sending a statutory notice to the company but the company failed and neglected to pay the outstanding amount. The petitioner states that the company vide its e-mail dated 2.9.2014 acknowledged and confirmed that invoices listed therein for an aggregate amount of Rs.1,42,84,471/- were outstanding. The petitioner therefore, has alleged that the company is unable to pay its debts in the normal and ordinary course of its business and hence is liable to be wound up.

(3.) The company's defence is that the petition is filed as a counter-blast to the respondents' claim in arbitration where the respondent had claimed a sum of Rs.5,55,62,526.30 along with interest @ 18% from 19.12.2010 until payment and/or realization. The facts leading to the arbitration is that one of the consignment that the petitioner carried on 19.12.2010 met with an accident and the cargo got damaged resulting in loss amounting to Rs.5,55,62,526/-. The respondents' insurance claim was rejected and hence the respondent demanded the amount from the petitioner which was not paid. The company therefore had to commence arbitration. The petitioner fearing the outcome of the arbitration and apprehending that it will suffer an award against it, filed this petition belatedly as a pressure tactic to try and force the respondent not to pursue the claim in arbitration.