Firm prays court to windup another over alleged N57.6m debt
A firm, AYM Shafa Limited, has filed a winding-up application at the federal high court, Lagos against Omritas Energy Limited over its inability to pay an alleged debt of N57.6 million.
The petitioner, in a motion on notice brought pursuant to order 26 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009; section 408 (D) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2004; order 19 of the Companies Winding up Rules, 2001 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, sought the court for an order granting leave to the petitioner /applicant to advertise the winding up petition by one insertion in the Federal Government of Nigeria official gazette and two national daily newspapers circulating where the respondent has its head office in compliance with the Companies Winding up Rules 2001.
According to the petitioner, the company offered to supply the petitioner 1,000,000 liters of Dual Purpose Kerosene at the rate of N150 per litre. The petitioner allegedly paid N150, 000,000 to the respondent, but the respondent supplied 337,000 litres at N150 leaving a debit balance of N99, 450,000.
After so many fruitless demands made to the petitioner to complete the supply of the DPK, the petitioner said it opted to take Automotive Gas Oil (AGO) at the rate of N160 per litre from the respondent and it (the respondent) supplied 339,000 liters leaving a balance of N45, 210, 000.
Subsequently, the respondent approached the petitioner that it has a cargo of AGO and will sell at the rate of N160.
The petitioner paid the respondent the sum of N105, 760,000 for the supply of 661,000 litres of AGO but the respondent supplied only 583,000 litres leaving a debt balance of N12, 480, 000, which when added to the earlier N45, 210, 000 brings the outstanding total debt of the respondent to N57, 690,000.
In its response, the respondent claimed that the petitioner has not complied with the law in presenting the petition. It is therefore challenging the competence of the petition, describing same as an abuse of court process. The respondent also denied being indebted to the petitioner to the tune of the amount claimed or any sum at all.
No Comments yet