9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Petition admitted for a sum with interest, disposed of upon admission. 2. Company applied for recalling order, allowed to contest petition. 3. Company's response to statutory notice, affidavit opposing winding-up order. 4. Company's claim of adjustment against petitioner's dues. 5. Company's claim of petitioner accepting to give up claim for rejected material. 6. Denial of letters issued by petitioner, authenticity of documents. 7. Dispute over letter of adjustment, resignation of employee, lack of material evidence. 8. Denial of inferior quality goods, alleged fake letters, defense of company. 9. Manufactured documents, evidence awaiting trial, benefit of doubt to company. 10. Company's luxury to take balance adjustment to trial, petitioner relegated to a suit. 11. Admission of principal sum with interest, liability of company to pay interest. 12. Company offering security, permitted to contest claim, take back security. 13. Company permitted to pay admitted amount within three weeks, default consequences. 14. Balance claim of petitioner relegated to a suit. 15. Petitioner seeks restraining order from instituting a suit. 16. Petitioner granted restraining order for six weeks. Analysis: 1. The petition was initially admitted for a specific sum with interest and disposed of upon admission, allowing the petitioner to recover the balance sum through appropriate proceedings. The company later applied to recall the order and was permitted to contest the petition, providing cash security with advocates as Joint Receivers. 2. The company's lack of response to the statutory notice and initial failure to oppose the winding-up order raised concerns. The company claimed adjustments against the petitioner's dues, citing letters and agreements regarding rejected material and dealings with an associate concern. 3. Disputes arose over the authenticity of letters and documents, with the petitioner denying the issuance of certain letters and questioning the company's explanations. The resignation of an employee and lack of evidence further complicated the matter. 4. The company's defense included denying allegations of inferior quality goods and asserting that certain letters were fabricated. The court acknowledged the possibility of manufactured documents but emphasized the need for evidence during trial. 5. The court admitted the principal sum with interest, holding the company liable for payment based on its own accounts. The company was allowed to contest the claim and retrieve the security provided. 6. The company was given a timeframe to pay the admitted amount, with consequences outlined for default. The balance claim of the petitioner was directed to be pursued through a separate suit, while a restraining order was granted to the petitioner for a limited period.
|
