CO.PET.--548/2015. Case: A.R. CONSTRUCTION Vs. C.C.C. INFRASYS PRIVATE LIMITED. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CO.PET.--548/2015 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | July 24, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 11th July, 2017
Pronounced on: 24th July, 2017
+ CO.PET. 548/2015
A.R. CONSTRUCTION ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.L.B.Rai, Mr.Mohit Kumar
Sharma and Mr.Sumit Nagpal, Advocates.
versus
C.C.C. INFRASYS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Dalip Mehra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 433 and 434 of Companies Act, 1956 on the basis of a work order dated 29.09.2014 given by respondent for doing the M.S. Structural work. The rate agreed between the petitioner and respondent was ₹74 per kg for the said work.
2. After getting the work order dated 29.09.2014, the petitioner executed the work successfully at site and raised various invoices for the same. The said invoices are of dated 27.10.2014, 01.12.2014
27.12.2014 for total sum of ₹49,54,382/-. The respondent paid an amount of ₹23,26,500/- on account thus leaving a balance of ₹26,27,444/- . Some extra work worth ₹3.00 Lac was directed to be done which also completed successfully. Hence, the respondent issued four cheques towards balance payment of the invoices raised by the petitioner, of
Co. Petition No.548/2015 Page 1 of 5
15.05.2015 for ₹3,00,000/-; and of dated 19.05.2015 for ₹8,91,000/-. these cheques were dishonoured on the ground ‘INSTR STALE (instrument stale) / payment stopped by the drawer. A statutory notice though issued on 03.06.2015, was ignored despite being served upon respondent company on 10.06.2015. Hence this petition was filed
04.08.2015.
3. It is the petitioner’s case that there was never any complaint received from the respondent company qua the execution of the work that now in its reply to this petition, the respondent has raised concerns about the quality of the work and also qua certain formalities left to completed –viz. (a) failure to submit measurements duly certified by M/s Regant Garages Private Limited; (b) failure to furnish the check certified by M/s Regant Garages Private Limited; (c) submission of claim undertaking; submission of unconditional acceptance of final submissions of clearance certificate by M/s Regant Garages Private Limited; (d) certain discrepancy in the bills raised by the petitioner
(e) that such cheques were given only as a security.
4. These objections are raised by the respondent for the first time its reply to the petition for winding up before this court despite having failed to even...
To continue reading
Request your trial