9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner and the said amount has not been paid by the company despite service of statutory notice dated February 1, 1993. The show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-company and the reply has been filed. It is mentioned in the reply that there has been a running account between the parties and, in fact, the balance due from the petitioner-company was Rs. 8,80,644 after adjusting Rs. 5,00,000 received, vide cheque dated June 9, 1992, the balance amount due was Rs. 3,80,644 and the petitioner had issued a cheque again dated June 13, 1992, in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 to clear the balance but the said cheque bounced and a notice was issued to the petitioner dated August 14, 1992, and thereafter a criminal complaint has been fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,000 was given to clear some balance amount due from the petitioner which was to the tune of Rs. 8,80,644. The respondent-company has placed on record the documents to show that when these two disputed bills were raised even the excise duty has been paid and gate passes from the Excise Officer had been obtained. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has argued that there is no proof furnished by the respondent that in fact the goods pertaining to these two entries had been received by the petitioner. He has argued that challans are prepared in triplicate by the respondent-company and along with the goods a copy of the challan and the bill are sent to the petitioner and while receiving the goods the signatures of some authorised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petition. The claim of the petitioner was based on a balance struck at the end of the closing year and so, it was necessary that the petitioner should have filed a copy of his account books along with the petition. It is only when the respondent had filed the reply and filed the statement of account that the petitioner for the first time in the rejoinder came up with the plea that these two debit entries pertaining to the said two bills are fabricated. Prima facie, it appears that these two entries could not have been fabricated by the respondent-company when even excise duty has been paid in respect of these two entries in February, 1992, when the bills were prepared. It is also quite clear that the petitioner has given statutory noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. So, nothing said in this judgment would apply to the facts of the present case. Another judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is Paramount Enterprises v. Reechem Pvt. Ltd. [1985] 57 Comp Cas 200 (AP). In the said case, the only dispute was regarding the quantum of the amount paid as advance. On the facts the Andhra Pradesh High Court came to the conclusion that the defence raised by the company was not bona fide and thus, it was held that the winding-up order could be made in such a case. Again, this case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has relied upon I.T.C. Ltd. v. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. [1991] 70 Comp Cas 459 , where it was l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
