9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted company. Tenders were invited by S. B. Properties and Enterprises Ltd., as it then stood, for furniture, furnishing and interior decoration of roof-top restaurant 'Shivir' and 'Rana Sanga Bar' in Hotel Mansingh at Jaipur. Anil Verma were the interior designers and all instructions were taken from them. Later on, the work order was revised and a fresh letter dated August 16, 1987, revising the previous letter dated July 9, 1987, was issued. It was done by Shri Kamal Bajaj, Chief Engineer of Mansingh Hotel. Era Furnishers started the work and completed the same within time and according to the terms and conditions of the work order, the company had been releasing payments to Era Furnishers on submitting their bills from time to time and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is that a dispute existed between the parties all along of which Era Furnishers was aware but has deliberately tried to hide this fact from the court. It is said that the bills submitted on October 12, 1987, could not be final and the amount of Rs. 98,313 is not determined and does not fall within the four corners of clause of section 433( e ) of the Act. It is also the case of the respondent-company that, as per its last annual report, the respondent-company is commercially extremely well-off, with huge reserves which are now being utilised for expansion programmes. On being ordered by the court, the respondent-company also filed its latest balance-sheet to show its real financial status. From a bare perusal of the latest balance-sheet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he meaning of section 434 of the Act to the respondent-company and requested it to make the payment of Rs. 50,861 within 21 days of the receipt of the said notice. A copy of the said notice has been filed as annexure P-5. A look at the notice, annexure P-5, will show that it is dated August 6, 1988, and not August 9, 1988, and it will further show that it is a three weeks' notice demanding from the respondent-company balance of payment of Rs. 50,861 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. It is also mentioned in the notice that on failure of payment, Era Furnishers shall be constrained to take such legal steps against the company as they may be advised for recovery of the said amount with interest at their risk and cost. It is also ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fide and the company is raising a dispute by alleging, without any concrete material, that, in collusion and conspiracy, the petitioner has committed a fraud upon the company in delivering indigenous materials although the contract was for sale of foreign materials, such allegation should not be allowed to be taken up without concrete material on which such allegation can be framed. In other words, it was held that if the dispute raised is not bona fide and there is no substance either in facts or in law in the said defence, a winding up order should be made. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the claim of Era Furnishers comes within the definition of "debt" and whether the defence raised by the respondent-company is reasonable and bona f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al bill of the petitioner including extra work done by the petitioner at Rs. 3,07,861 thereby leaving a sum of Rs. 94,861 as balance due from the company to the petitioner. In para 14 of the reply, it has not been denied and all that has been stated is that, in view of the fact that annexure P-13 filed by the petitioner-company itself is dated October 12, 1987, the contents are incorrect. It is also admitted that Rs. 44,000 were paid on October 30, 1987. As stated earlier, a stand has been taken by the respondent-company that the amount of Rs, 50,861 is disputed because there were certain defects which were not rectified. A look at annexure P-4, letter dated December 31, 1987, of Anil Verma, who were the interior designers, will show that S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is also a letter of Anil Verma dated January 3, 1987, wherein he wrote to the Chief Engineer as to why defects were not pointed to him during his visit to Hotel Mansingh on October 10, 1987. It can, therefore, be said that the defence as raised by the respondent-company that there are still defects which were not rectified and that that is why the payment has not been made, cannot be said to be unreasonable. It has already been said earlier that, even after submitting the final bill, a payment of Rs. 44,000 was made to Era Furnishers by the respondent-company and that the respondent-company is financially sound. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the amount claimed is not disputed and the dispute raised on behalf of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
