JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner in CP No.40 of 2015 seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh. 2. Since the issue that has arisen herein is as to whether the creditor’s winding-up petition is maintainable as the statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act has not been served at the registered office of the company, the petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty as sought, subject to the service of the statutory notice at the registered office of the company. 3. The petitioner will pay costs assessed at 100 GM to the company as condition precedent to filing a fresh petition. 4. One of the petitions pertaining to company Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited has been advertised. Several other petitions are pending adjudication and such other petitioners have joined in by filing supporting affidavits. Several other creditors who have not filed individual petitions have supported the prayer for winding-up on the ground of the company’s inability to pay its debts. Supporting affidavits in such cases have been filed and the company has been allowed to deal with the claims contained in the supporting affidavits. There are two basic groups of unsecured creditors who are represented: erstwhile employees of the company and trade creditors. The company seeks to make a distinction between the trade creditors by referring to three of them – Royal Touch Fablon Private Limited, Fortune Ispat Private Limited and Carbon Resources Private Limited – in respect whereof the company says that it accepts 80% of the value of the claims made by such trade creditors; and, other trade creditors whose claims are substantially disputed. As to the claims of the erstwhile employees of the company, it is submitted by the company that each employee had a fixed component of the monthly salary and a variable component; and, the company accepts all claims on account of the fixed component, but does not accept the claims made on account of the variable component. 5. There is also the minor matter of one Prakash Trading Company, the petitioner in CP No.684 of 2014, which has apparently been paid off by the company. The company relies on a document on the letterhead of Prakash Trading Company dated July 29, 2015, detailing five cheques totaling to Rs.1,79,322/- that Prakash Trading company has apparently received in full and final settlement of the claim against the company. 6. The company relies on a document on the letterhead of Prakash Trading Company dated July 29, 2015, detailing five cheques totaling to Rs.1,79,322/- that Prakash Trading company has apparently received in full and final settlement of the claim against the company. 6. The other creditors cry foul as the payment, they claim, amounts to fraudulent preference, particularly, since one of the petitions has been advertised and the matter has assumed a representative character. The appearing creditors say that the company could not have settled any claim with any creditor who is in Court after the winding-up petition in case of CP No.654 of 2014 has been advertised in the month of November, 2014. 7. Since all the matters pertaining to the company have to be taken up together as all creditors of the company who are before Court demand payment, the individual petitions are taken up chronologically as they appear in the list and the claims of the supporting creditors will be dealt with at the appropriate stage. Since the company has offered to pay 80% of the dues of Royal Touch Fablon Private Limited and Fortune Ispat Private Limited, though such petitioners have not agreed to accept the reduced amounts, such petitions may be taken up for consideration after the disputed claims are dealt with. 8. The first in line is the claim of Mohan Singh, who rendered security services to the company at its Jaisalmir unit. The petitioner carries on business under the name and style of MJ Services. 9. The petitioner relies on an e-mail communication of May 23, 2014, a copy whereof appears at page 130 of the petition. The mail emanates from one Abhinav Kumar, an executive in the credit administration department of the Abhijeet group. The company comes from the stable of the Abhijeet group of companies and there is another company from the same group, Pathbreaking Projects Limited, which is also in serious financial difficulty and in respect whereof two of the petitions have already been advertised. 10. It is not disputed by the company that the e-mail of May 23, 2014 was issued by the company or on its behalf. The e-mail message says as follows: “After accounts reconciliation of MJ Services bills received from the vendor. Their dues is Rs.87.8 Lacs approximately till May 14.” 11. 10. It is not disputed by the company that the e-mail of May 23, 2014 was issued by the company or on its behalf. The e-mail message says as follows: “After accounts reconciliation of MJ Services bills received from the vendor. Their dues is Rs.87.8 Lacs approximately till May 14.” 11. The details furnished in the mail are in the form of a chart indicating the exercise of reconciliation of the accounts conducted on May 21, 2014. The total amount shown outstanding in the last line of the table is Rs.87,86,367/-. 12. The petitioner issued the statutory notice on January 27, 2015 and addressed it to the various offices of the company, including its registered office at Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Calcutta 700 091. Paragraph 4 of the notice claimed as follows: “4. That the total bill amount for the year 2012-13 was Rs.53,07,016,79, for the year 2013-14 was Rs.5,60,895.85 and Rs.59,77,332/- and for the months of April and May, 2014, Rs.5,87,772/- and Rs.6,03,350/- respectively. Therefore, total amount due from your goodselves was Rs.1,40,36,337/- (One Crore forty lacs thirty six thousand three hundred thirty seven only). Out of which sum of Rs.52,50,000 was paid. Therefore, total sum of Rs.87,86,367 was overdue from your goodselves to my client.” 13. On a pointed question by the Court to the company, it has been submitted that the payment of Rs.52,50,000/- acknowledged by the petitioning creditor to have been received from the company was made by the company by the end of March, 2013. 14. No reply was issued by the company to the statutory notice. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the company there is no explanation as to why a reply was not issued to the statutory notice. The company cannot demonstrate from its affidavit-in-opposition that the clear and unambiguous admission made by or on its behalf on May 23, 2015 has been explained away or attempted to be explained away in such affidavit. 15. When the affidavits of the supporting creditors were filed after the first of these petitions were advertised, the company sought leave to file supplementary affidavits to the claims of even the other petitioning creditors which were awaiting adjudication. Since this is first Court, the company was allowed to file supplementary affidavits to refurbish or embellish its defence in the several petitions which remained pending. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the company in this case. Since this is first Court, the company was allowed to file supplementary affidavits to refurbish or embellish its defence in the several petitions which remained pending. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the company in this case. Again, the admission is not sought to be explained away or detracted from. Again, there is no explanation in the supplementary affidavit as to why the company could not make it convenient to reply to the statutory notice issued by the petitioner. 16. The only paragraph placed from the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the company is paragraph 11, which makes out some kind of a story without any sequitur to it since no documents in support thereof appear to have been appended to the supplementary affidavit. The only documents that have been placed on behalf of the company from its supplementary affidavit are those that appear at pages 26 to 33 thereof. These letters have been referred to at paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit and there are eight letters apparently issued by the company between November 15, 2011 and October 8, 2013, requesting the petitioner to furnish the attendance-sheets and provident fund details of the petitioner’s employees deployed at the relevant unit of the company. 17. It is significant that six of the eight letters referred to at paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit and copies whereof have been appended to such affidavit were issued prior to March 31, 2013, by which time a payment in excess of Rs.52.50 lakh was made by the company to the petitioner without insisting on the petitioner’s compliance with the requests contained in the letters for furnishing the attendance-sheets and provident fund details of the personnel deployed at the relevant unit by the petitioner. More interestingly, the supplementary affidavit does not make out why such documents, which form the sheet anchor of the company’s defence, could not be relied upon in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the company; or, why despite such seemingly robust defence, the company did not venture to pen a reply to the statutory notice issued by the petitioner. 18. Not surprisingly, the very existence of these eight letters has been questioned by the petitioner. In the rejoinder filed to the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has clean denied the issuance of the said letters by the company or the receipt thereof by the petitioner. 19. 18. Not surprisingly, the very existence of these eight letters has been questioned by the petitioner. In the rejoinder filed to the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has clean denied the issuance of the said letters by the company or the receipt thereof by the petitioner. 19. The company has not been able to demonstrate how or when such letters were served on the petitioner. There is no averment at paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit or elsewhere as to the mode of service of such letters on the company. The company was called upon to rebut the inference that may be drawn from its conduct that these documents may have been brought into existence for the purpose of shoring up a defence where none existed. The company has not been able to indicate that the letters were contemporaneously issued or otherwise rebut an adverse inference being drawn. 20. It is evident that the company is unable to pay the dues of this petitioner. The company has attempted to put up a facade in its supplementary affidavit only to buy time and stall the inevitable. The admission on behalf of the company remains unquestioned. In such circumstances, the reliance on the eight letters (all of which pre-date the admission) cannot be appreciated. 21. The company has no defence to the claim and the company is liable to pay the amount of Rs.87,86,367/- as admitted to the petitioner, together with reasonable interest. The balance claim of the petitioner, on account of a dishonoured cheque, is not taken into consideration since the primary document pertaining to such claim has not been appended to the petition. The petitioner will be permitted to make a claim in respect of such dishonoured cheque in accordance with law. 22. As morning shows the day, so will the rest of the defence put up by the company be assessed. The time wasted in putting up a bogus defence in the case of Mohan Singh should weigh with the Court while assessing the other claims against this seemingly fraudulent and apparently bankrupt company. 23. The claim of Royal Touch Fablon Pvt. Ltd. next falls for consideration. It is not in dispute that against invoices of a total value in excess of Rs.7 crore raised by this petitioner on the company, only a principal sum of slightly over Rs.23 lakh remains unpaid. 23. The claim of Royal Touch Fablon Pvt. Ltd. next falls for consideration. It is not in dispute that against invoices of a total value in excess of Rs.7 crore raised by this petitioner on the company, only a principal sum of slightly over Rs.23 lakh remains unpaid. The company asserts that there are quality claims against the petitioner, though the company cannot indicate why no reply was sent to the statutory notice issued by this creditor or the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the company did not refer to the alleged quality complaints. 24. As in the case of Mohan Singh, the company sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit and was afforded such opportunity since all matters as to facts ought to be completed in the first Court. 25. In such supplementary affidavit, the company has asserted that the supplies effected by the creditor “were not matching the quality and standard as required by the company.” In support of such assertion, the company has relied on the copy documents forming a part of Annexure-E to the supplementary affidavit. These documents are apparently internal inspection reports prepared by the company and it does not appear that such inspection reports were ever forwarded by the company to the supplier. 26. The deponent of the affidavit, Sanjib Basak, has been examined as to the contents of the affidavit in accordance with the principles recognised in Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The deponent has candidly admitted that he had no knowledge of the service of any of the documents relied upon in the supplementary affidavit on the creditor; that he faithfully accepted the instructions issued on mail by his employer. The deponent has also revealed that the deponent is not employed by Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited but is employed by some other group company. The deponent claims to have been authorised by the board of directors of Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited to affirm affidavits on behalf of such company. It is also of some significance that the opening paragraph of the supplementary affidavit claims that the deponent is “the authorised signatory of the company” which is rather bemusing since a company affirms affidavits through an authorised principal officer or by an attorney. Sanjib Basak happens to be neither qua the company. 27. It is also of some significance that the opening paragraph of the supplementary affidavit claims that the deponent is “the authorised signatory of the company” which is rather bemusing since a company affirms affidavits through an authorised principal officer or by an attorney. Sanjib Basak happens to be neither qua the company. 27. The claim of Royal Touch Fablon Private Limited had been adjudicated prior to the luncheon recess today and the order thereon was being pronounced. The order was dictated to such a stage as evident from the immediate preceding paragraph before the break intervened. 28. It is submitted on behalf of the company immediately after the recess that the company no longer disputes the principal claims of the three trade creditors – Royal Touch Fablon Private Limited, Fortune Ispat Private Limited and Carbon Resources Private Limited. 29. Let the matters pertaining to this company stand over till October 6, 2015, including the claim of unsecured creditors ARCIL and RECL of about Rs.192 crore. 30. A file containing the original documents pertaining to Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited and Abhijeet Projects Limited (now Pathbreaking Projects Limited) have been carried to Court in pursuance of the direction issued on October 1, 2015. The file is handed over to counsel for the company for it to be brought to Court on October 6, 2015. 31. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.