Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1993 (4) TMI 198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the company. It is further pointed out that the company kept on shifting its registered office without filing any return with the Registrar of Companies and that a notice was ultimately served on May 21, 1988. Despite such service the respondent-company did not pay the dues of the petitioner nor took any steps to compound the dues. The petition was resisted on various grounds which have been refuted by the petitioner in the rejoinder. The respondent has alleged that there exists a bona fide dispute about the claim of the petitioner. The respondent while disputing the liability and delivery of goods, the price whereof is claimed by the petitioner, has taken the plea that the respondent received a licence to manufacture pharmaceuticals by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as affixed by Mr. Jain himself after interpolating the date thereon. I may note that although this letter is being attributed to the sole proprietorship concern which is alleged to be different from the respondent-company, yet the carbon copy of the original was produced by the respondent's counsel from the respondents' custody. Furthermore, no explanation is forthcoming as to how the respondent was in possession of the carbon copy of the letter dated December 26, 1985, when according to them this letter did not pertain to the company and had been forged and fabricated by the petitioner by altering the date and also by affixing the rubber stamp of the company. It was further stated that the proprietary concern was changed to a partnership a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed but no explanation is forthcoming about the reasons for Mr. A.K. Racharva's signatures which are not disputed on those declaration slips. The respondent has not produced in the court their sales tax registration certificate nor have they got produced the record of the sole proprietorship to sustain their allegations that the sales tax declarations related to the proprietorship concern. Production of the record of the alleged proprietorship would have been no problem since the alleged proprietor and managing director of the respondent are the same person. In para 8 of the reply, the respondent has stated that it has been lying closed since July 11, 1986, which clearly indicates that the company had not been carrying on any business since .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ietorship and not the respondent-company as referred to in para 2 of the rejoinder. The petitioner has further filed a letter from the manufacturer, i.e. , Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited wherein they have listed all the bills which are the subject-matter of the claim of the petitioner against the respondent stating therein, inter alia , as under: "This is to certify that we have received payment from you against our various invoices as per the details given for supplies made through you to Richa Laboratories Pvt. Ltd...". The petitioner has also filed a copy of its own statement of accounts showing the debits relating to the aforesaid bills to the manufacturers and debits have been raised after payment against the respondent after payme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the limitation from running out. The respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this court, Ambey Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Vimal Chand Jain [1991] 70 Comp Cas 561 (Delhi); [1990] 1 Comp LJ 289, wherein it was held that winding up proceedings are no substitute for proceedings for recovery. In that case it was in the light of a substantial defence raised by the company that the court was pleased to dismiss the company petition. While taking the above view they left the petitioning creditor free to seek his remedy by way of a civil suit. In the present case I am not in a position to agree with the respondent that there exists a bona fide dispute. The petitioner has, however, not produced any agreement between the petitioner and the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates