9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (4) TMI 389 - HC - Companies LawApplication under Section 446(2)(b) by Official Liquidator on behalf of the Company in liquidation demand of a sum of Rs. 6,47,394/- with interest thereon from the respondent company - the receivable ledger for the period 1.6.2000 to 01.04.2004 reflects the said amount as against the name of the respondent with reference to the invoices under which the machines are supplied to the respondent Held that - the invoices claimed as dues in the statement maintained by the Company-in-liquidation are the very same invoices, the supplies made thereunder have been rejected - said invoice is found in Ex.P2 for the period commencing from 01.06.2000 and the rejection of the same is indicated in the statement maintained by the respondent at Ex.D2 for the period from 01.07.2000 to 31.07.2000 - claim as made in the application has not been proved.
Issues:
Claim for payment under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act read with Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules, 1959. Analysis: The Official Liquidator filed an application claiming a sum of Rs. 6,47,394/- with interest from the respondent company, which was in liquidation. The company's Directors had filed a statement indicating the amount due from the debtors, including the respondent. The respondent disputed the claim, stating they were not liable to pay as certain machines supplied were rejected. The matter proceeded to record evidence, where witnesses from both sides testified. The Official Liquidator's evidence was countered by the respondent's evidence, showing rejection of machines supplied and claiming the Company-in-liquidation owed them money instead. Judgment: The Court noted the evidence presented by both parties. The Official Liquidator's evidence was based on statements and notices, while the respondent's evidence, including oral and documentary, demonstrated rejection of certain machines supplied and claimed dues. The Court found that the claim lacked supporting evidence other than the statement, which was effectively countered by the respondent's evidence. Consequently, the Court held that the claim was not proven and dismissed the application for payment.
|
