9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain machinery for a price of 85,270 Swiss Francs. The machinery was supplied but the respondent paid only 76,236 Swiss Francs and has defaulted in payment of the balance of 9,034 Francs (Rs. 59,57063) with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum despite repeated demands including a formal notice of demand under section 434 dated January 2, 1984. The respondent company, therefore, it is prayed, should be wound up. Counsel for the respondent company opposes the admission of the petition on three grounds: (1)The claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation as on date and was time-barred even as on the date of the filing of the petition. (2)The respondent company had not placed the order in question on the petitioner a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ple is applied, the present petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage of the hearing, requested that he may be allowed to amend the petition so as to incorporate facts showing that the claim is not time-barred. Though I am not inclined to accede to this belated request, I do not wish to rest my conclusion on this ground. Even otherwise, I think, the petition deserves dismissal. Both from the petition as well as the replies, it is clear that the orders for the machinery were placed on the petitioner not by the first respondent company but by the National Small Scale Industries Corporation (NSIC), New Delhi (which has been subsequently added as a respondent to the petition). About nine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o say that the existence and extent of such liability is a matter of controversy and genuine dispute. That apart, both the NSIC and the respondent company have contended that the petitioner was guilty of the breach of the terms of the contract such as that the petitioner had not properly packed the same before despatch or sent an engineer for its installation and that in the circumstances, no question of payment of the balance price could arise. The respondent company has also added that the machinery had been badly damaged in transit and that a claim for damage has been lodged with the insurance company but this is denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder. Here again, no facts have been stated in the petition or even in the rejoinder whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
