9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and J.M. Jain for the Respondent. JUDGMENT V.K. Singhal, J. -- All these company petitions are disposed of by this common order since the controversy involved is common. The dispute is with regard to the principal sum outstanding against Desert Inn Pvt. Ltd. which has not been paid to Swati Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Sushil Kumar and Company. In respect of S.K. Jain, N.K. Goenka and Sumati Cement Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n my attention towards the reply filed and other documents stating that there is contradiction in the reply on behalf of the company and that they should not be allowed to be benefited for the money they had retained and should be subjected to payment of interest. It was the duty of the company to make the payment when the notice under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, was issued. By simply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wal by November 13, 1996. Regarding the claim for interest, I consider that the liability itself is disputed and there appears to be a bona fide dispute. I would not like to say more as it is open to the petitioner to file a civil suit even with regard to the liability of the interest, if any. In the proceedings for winding up if the amount is disputed one and has not been paid then the direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
