9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dispute over interest component in supplies made by petitioner to respondent. 2. Settlement amount discrepancy and agreement on interest payment. 3. Legal validity of interest charges based on bills and cheques. 4. Adjustment of payments towards interest and principal. 5. Application of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 6. Determination of amount due from respondent to petitioner. 7. Direction for depositing outstanding amount with the court. 8. Consideration of settlement or suit for full payment. 9. Respondent's approach to the BIFR and possible winding up. Analysis: 1. The dispute arose regarding the interest component in supplies made by the petitioner to the respondent between November 1995 and July 1997, amounting to Rs. 68,56,071. The ledger indicated a balance due of Rs. 41,47,187, with the respondent claiming interest was not reflected in it. 2. A settlement was reached for Rs. 46,93,000, consisting of principal and interest, though the actual outstanding amount was slightly higher. The respondent contended no agreement for interest existed, while the petitioner argued for interest payment based on bills and cheques. 3. The court noted that bills alone do not constitute an agreement for interest payment. However, in this case, cheques were issued after default in payment, indicating an agreement for interest at 25% per annum. The cheques corroborated the bills, supporting the petitioner's claim. 4. The petitioner sought to adjust payments towards interest first, then principal, resulting in an outstanding amount of Rs. 35,21,428 as of December 31, 2000, which was the amount claimed in the petition. 5. Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was invoked, presuming the cheques of Rs. 46,93,000 were for the discharge of debt. The court clarified that the dispute over adjusting payments arose only concerning the claimed amount of Rs. 35,21,428. 6. The court determined that Rs. 13,56,952 was due from the respondent to the petitioner, to be deposited with the court within four weeks. This amount did not correspond to the adjusted amount of Rs. 35,21,428. 7. Following the deposit, the court would decide whether to credit it to a suit or release it for full settlement, contingent on mutual agreement. 8. The respondent's approach to the BIFR was noted, strengthening the decision to admit the winding-up petition. The possibility of appointing a provisional liquidator was deferred for further consideration. 9. The case was scheduled for renotification on 16-12-2002 to review the progress and make further decisions based on the circumstances.
|
