9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or which various bills were raised which were acknowledged by the respondent. An amount of Rs. 9,58,966 was due in respect of outstanding bills to both the petitioners as on October 19, 1994. To the reminder dated October 19, 1994, issued by the petitioners, the respondent replied on October 22, 1994, stating that the amount shown as outstanding is not correct and that the bills need to be reconciled. The petitioners deputed their accounts personnel along with the documents for effecting reconciliation but were always turned back by the respondent on some pretext or the other. Thereupon the petitioners issued legal notice on November 30, 1994, under section 434 of the Act, to which a reply was given by the respondent on December 20, 1994, disputing its liability. As this denial of the liability is only an afterthought, the petitioners have filed this petition. On February 17, 1995, notice before admission was ordered and the respondent filed a counter stating that the petitioner-companies were appointed for specific works and they were required to submit proper estimates for approval of the respondent-company and after due approval and authorisation they were to execute these spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 2,52,990, respectively, which were referred to in the reminder dated June 7, 1994, issued by the first petitioner to the respondent. I also directed the petitioners to file originals of the media estimates referred to in para 7 of the counter which are said to be in the possession of the petitioners. But the petitioners in the additional reply-affidavit stated that the said estimate which is merely a price-list containing the rates charged by different periodicals and newspapers for publication slots had been furnished by the petitioners to the respondent at the inception to enable them to know the rates chargeable and that it was retained by the respondent and was neither meant to be handed back nor in fact handed back to the petitioners as it was only a quotation of the rates chargeable and that the petitioners are not privy to the markings, additions and interlineations made thereon. The respondent filed additional affidavit in answer to the additional reply stating that the media estimate is submitted for the respondent's approval for the work to be undertaken by the petitioners and categorically denying that it has retained the originals. The respondent has also earlier fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he defence is likely to succeed in point of law, and, thirdly, the company adduces prima facie proof of the facts on which the defence depends." This was reiterated in a recent case Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. v. North India Petro Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 79 Comp Cas 835 (SC), where a petition for winding up was not admitted since the relationship of creditor and debtor did not exist and the same was the subject-matter of arbitration which was pending adjudication and the defence raised was a substantial one. The respondent has a prima facie case in denying its liability and its defence is bona fide . Of course, it is not necessary for me to pronounce upon this aspect finally as this is not the proper forum. As can be seen from the narration of facts stated above, the petitioners have to raise bills on the respondent only after the work and estimate is approved by the respondent. It is the specific case of the respondent that the petitioners have raised bills on the respondent even for the work not approved and it is not without substance. For instance three bills Nos. 167 dated March 25, 1994, 176 dated April 4, 1994 and 177 dated April 5, 1994, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners, were accepted by the company, which, when presented on maturity, failed to pay on the ground that the petitioners owed considerable amounts to the company and that the acceptance of the bills was conditional. The next decision is Premier Vegetable Products Ltd, v. United Asian Bank [1980] 50 Comp Cas 680 (Raj). The same proposition was reiterated in this case by the Rajasthan High Court and as the company which had taken delivery of the goods supplied by the petitioner admitted its liability to the bank and showed its liability in the balance-sheet, it was held that the dispute about the debt is not bona fide . In T.P. Sahu and Sons Pvt. Ltd., In re [1982] 52 Comp Cas 182 (Cal) the company accepted the supply of goods without any objection and never raised any objection to the bill at any point of time and in fact asked the supplier's representative to call for payment and it is only after the statutory notice was served that the company had set up a document alleged to have been sent under certificate of posting, on a date which was a public holiday, alleging that the goods were not according to specification and seeking thereby to dispute the claim. In those c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
