Delhi High Court
Kuber Alloys vs Uttranchal Ispat Private Limited ... on 3 February, 2016
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 03.02.2016
+ CO.PET. 78/2016 & CA Nos. 323-325/2016
KUBER ALLOYS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Ashok Kumar Juneja & Mr Mithlesh
K. Singh, Advs.
versus
UTTRANCHAL ISPAT PRIVATE
LIMITED & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER (ORAL)
%
1. This is a petition, essentially, filed under Section 433(e) of the
Companies Act, 1956 (in short the 1956 Act). The petitioner claims that it
had supplied Sponge Irons to respondent no.1 company. In respect of the
material supplied, the petitioner claims that invoices were generated
between 11.10.2011 and 30.10.2012. The petitioner claims that against the
invoices, the aggregate amount that the respondent No. 1 company was
required to pay, is a sum of Rs. 4,54,81,419.76/-. It is the petitioner's case
that respondent no.1 company had provided requisite C-Forms in respect of
the material sold to it.
2. It is also the petitioner's case, since payments were not made, a
demand notice dated 30.07.2014 was issued under Section 434 of the 1956
Act.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner says that despite service of demand
notice, no reply has been received.
3. A perusal of the demand notice dated 30.07.2014 would show that it
has been served on respondent no.1 company at the following address: A-
350, Gali No. 5, Meet Nagar, Wazirabad Road, Sahadra Road, Delhi - 110
094. As per the notice, the aforesaid address happened to be the registered
office of respondent no.1 company.
3.1 However, the memo of parties filed with the petition depicts that the
registered office of respondent no.1 company is located at: IX/3580, Near
Jain Mandir, Dharampura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 110 031.
3.2 In support of what is shown in the memo of parties, the learned
counsel for the petitioner relies upon the information uploaded on the
MCA's website, apparently, by respondent no.1 company.
4. I have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he
has filed the requisite document to establish that when the demand notice
dated 30.07.2014 was issued, the registered office of the respondent No. 1
company was located at the address given in that notice. Learned counsel
for the petitioner says that no such document has been filed.
4.1 To be noted, this was the precise issue which the registry had also
raised at the time of, filing of the petition; despite which, the petitioner's
counsel did not take the trouble of filing the requisite documents.
4.2 Therefore, the petition, as filed today, is deficient in material
particulars.
4.3 The demand notice as per the provisions of section 434 of the 1956
Act has to be delivered at the registered office of the concerned company.
5. Besides what is indicated above, the amounts which are claimed with
respect to the 79 invoices span a period of nearly one year i.e. 11.10.2011 to
30.10.2012. This petition has been filed in December, 2015.
5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner says that a suit has also been filed
for the very same purpose. It is his contention that the said suit was filed in
November, 2015.
5.2 While I do not wish to comment on this aspect, at this stage, the
petitioner does seem to have a hurdle its way in the form of limitation.
6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to
withdraw the petition and the pending applications, with liberty to file a
fresh petition.
7. Accordingly, the petition and the pending applications are dismissed
as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 03, 2016
kk
