Lawyer

My photo
New Delhi, New Delhi, India
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense...

Monday, September 10, 2012

Winding of petition dismissed when the issues were settled between parties and disputes resolved as held by Karnataka High Court


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
J.B. Electricals
vs.
Manipal Health Systems (P.) Ltd.
JAWAD RAHIM, J.

CO. PETITION NO. 224 OF 2011

JULY 20, 2012

ORDER

1. Petitioner, a partnership concern, by its managing partner, A.J. Benjamin has initiated action under Section 433(e) and (f) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the respondent company, M/s Manipal Health Systems Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act.

2. In support of such action, petitioner averred it had responded to the tender floated by the respondent company in connection with establishment of Malathi Manipal Hospital at Jayanagar. The quotation was accepted by the respondent company in terms of which petitioner commenced various project works including electrical contracts. The bid submitted by the petitioner firm on 26.11.2007 was for electrical works.

3. Petitioner firm, in right earnest, commenced and fulfilled most of the work under the contract and submitted bills to the respondent company for certification by M/s Procon Engineers, consultants. Despite submission of bills claiming Rs. 78,81,725.13, it was not cleared. After persuasion, only a sum of Rs. 73,04,532/- was paid, leaving a balance of Rs. 5,77,193.13.

4. Several correspondence were entered into but it was of no avail. Consequently, petitioner issued a legal notice on 24.1.2011 calling upon the respondent company to pay the said sum and also Rs. 2,16,450/- towards interest, vide Annexure-F.

5. The notice was duly served. The respondent company responded accepting the liability to pay Rs. 5,77,193/- and sought 20 days time and despite the petitioner agreeing to the request of the respondent, it was of no avail.

6. Relying on the certification issued by the consultants- M/s Procon Engineers certifying petitioner's entitlement as also legal notice issued and the reply of the respondent, petitioner sought winding up of the respondent company.

7. In response to the notice regarding admission, respondent company entered appearance and at its instance, time was granted till today.

8. Today learned counsel for the petitioner firm and the respondent company are present. They have filed al memo reporting that the parties have resolved the dispute amongst themselves and the respondent has paid to the petitioner firm Rs. 6,50,000/- vide Demand Draft No. 292918 dated 30.6.2012. Petitioner firm has received the said amount in full and final satisfaction of its claim.

9. The memo is placed on record. In view of the settlement so reported, the petition does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is dismissed as withdrawn.

...xxx...

No comments:

Post a Comment

Google+ Followers

Followers