9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant, decided the matter exclusively on the ground that the affidavit filed in support of the petition was not in proper form. In the Supreme Court in the special leave petition preferred against the aforesaid judgment, the appellant successfully sought remand of the case to the Division Bench for deciding the controversy on the merits. It is for this protracted litigation that the company petition that was filed in the year 1987, has come up for final adjudication after almost six years. The facts of the case, as incorporated in the petition, reveal that the respondent-company had been purchasing iron and steel items from the petitioner from time to time on credit and supplies were being made to the company as per its specifications for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he outstanding dues of the petitioner could not be paid in time in spite of promises and he assured that he was making sincere efforts to get the dues of the petitioner cleared as soon as possible and in any case not later than December 15, 1984. When even the date aforesaid expired and the dues were not paid, a representative of the petitioner visited the company's office at Chandigarh and thereafter it waited for nearly three months for payment and then sent a reminder on March 13, 1985. Legal notice was thereafter served upon the respondent-company on January 18, 1986, wherein the demand for the due amount with interest at the pate of 18 per cent. per annum was made. A second legal notice was served on July 29, 1986, with the same reques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch claim was being based, was signed by Shri S.S. Sandhu, who issued the cheque on August 7, 1984, which was presented to the bank for encashment on August 25, 1984, and that Shri S.S. Sandhu had no authority to issue the cheque all by himself as, vide resolution dated August 24, 1986, the cheque could only be issued under the joint signatures of the executive director and Shri S.S. Bhalla, resident manager. The cheque that was issued was stated to be of no legal validity. It was further pleaded that Shri Sandhu had issued the same with a view to harm the interest of the company. It was also pleaded that the cheque was pre-dated. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the written statement and by controverting the allegations made therein, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case showing receipt of the goods, admittedly does not bear the signature of Shri K.S. Rupal. It is the aforesaid officer of the company who is said to have signed the original bill dated August 7, 1984. Further, the photo copy of the cheque issued covering the price of the goods which was dishonoured is signed only by Shri S.S. Sandhu, executive director of the company. As noticed above, the positive plea of the respondent-company is that Shri Sandhu was not authorised to issue the cheques for and on behalf of the company. No evidence has been brought on record by the petitioner to show that Shri Sandhu was actually competent to issue the cheque for and on behalf of the company. It was not difficult for it to have obtained a certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
