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

1998 (2) TMI 451

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 42 and the respondent-company paid an amount of Rs. 12,53,634.98 in 25 instalments. 3. The case of the petitioner-company in brief is that on 11-5-1991 the respondent-company had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000 and thereafter it did not pay any amount. Therefore, on 21 -9-1991 the petitioner-company sent a letter demanding the outstanding amount, to which the respondent-company replied vide letter dated 21-10-1991 that within a month's time the claim would be settled. Again on 25-10-1991 and on 13-1-1992 demands were made through demand notices. But the respondent- company did not reply. Therefore, on 12-8-1994 the petitioner-company sent a statutory notice demanding Rs. 4,37,532.44. This notice was neither replied nor complied. Therefore, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of notice it is to be presumed that the respondent-company is unable to pay the dues. The notice may be sent under registered cover with acknowledgement due and it should be signed either by the creditor or his agent or his legal advisor. It is not the requirement of section 434 that it should be necessarily be mentioned in the notice that in the event of non-compliance, the creditor will take steps to apply for the winding up. It is also not necessary that the notice should be specifically mentioned that it is sent under section 434(1)( a ). No form is prescribed for sending the notice under section 434. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the submission of the lear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... edom Mazda v. Durga Prosad Chamaria AIR 1961 SC 1236 which is extracted hereunder: "6. It is thus clear that acknowledgement as prescribed by section 19 merely renews debt; it does not create a new right of action. It is a mere acknowledgement of the liability in respect of the right in question; it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication. The statement on which a plea of acknowledgement is based must relate to a present subsisting liability though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability may not be indicated in words. Words used in the acknowledgement must, however, indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t-company while accepting the jural relations of debtor and creditor has accepted its liability to pay the amount subject to verification by the staff engineers who were then not available in Hyderabad. On fair construction of the contents of the letter in the light of the above circumstances it appears that the respondent-company has admitted that it has to pay substantial amount against the bill by the petitioner-company. The petition has been filed within a period of three years from the acknowledgement of liability through letter dated 25-10-1991 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the claim is barred by limitation and, therefore, the second objection raised on behalf of the respondent-company is also rejected. It is pertinent to not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... encashed by the petitioner-company or not is a debatable question which can be decided only on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence to be filed on record. The allegation of the petitioner-company that certain amounts were paid by the respondent-company, for the work done for the residential accommodation, of its managing director is also a disputed question of fact. The aforementioned disputed questions of fact cannot be decided until oral evidence is recorded during trial. 11. For the reasons stated above, I reach the conclusion that there is a bona fide dispute regarding the claim of the petitioner-company that an amount of Rs. 2,72,533.42 is recoverable from the respondent-company. The bona fide dispute regarding the .....

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