9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim of being the holder in due course of bills of exchange, defence of fraud in the claim, presentation of bills for payment, issuance and withdrawal of notices by different companies, comparison of notices, allegation of forged endorsement, jurisdiction for winding up, financial status of the respondent. Analysis: The petitioner claimed to be the holder in due course of two bills of exchange dated December 15, 2002, endorsed in their favor on January 28, 2003, for the amount of US $2,165,000. The bills were payable on March 15, 2003, relating to goods supplied by "Sky Impex Ltd." to the respondent. The petitioner asserted their rights as a holder in due course based on the endorsement (para 1). The defence raised by the respondent was that the claim was fraudulent, supported by credit notes issued by the supplier confirming the return of goods to Dubai and no outstanding dues. Despite the bills being due on March 15, 2003, they were not presented for two years until a notice was issued in 2005 by a U.K. company, followed by another notice in 2005 by "Buxley Industries Ltd." The petitioner sent a notice in 2006, which was compared to the earlier notices, indicating similarities in content (para 2-3). The court noted the disputed questions regarding the alleged forged endorsement on the bills of exchange and the defense of fraud raised by the respondent. It was held that these issues required evidence and trial in a civil suit, rather than a winding-up petition. The court also considered the financial status of the respondent, highlighting substantial reserves, assets, sales, and profits, indicating no immediate need for winding up (para 4-5). In conclusion, the court dismissed the company petition, stating that the petitioner should pursue their claim through a civil suit to establish their rights, given the disputed issues of fraud and forged endorsement, and the respondent's sound financial standing (para 5).
|
