9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Act has its registered office at Chandigarh. It is stated by the petitioner that it had been supplying paper cones for a considerable period to the respondent-company and a running account for the supply made and received was being maintained between the parties. The items supplied are taxable under the Sales Tax Act. The respondent-company was sending their statement of account for reconciliation of accounts throughout the periods 1996-97 and 1997-98. Lastly, on March 31, 1998, the statement duly signed by the respondent-company was duly received by the petitioner-company showing a sum of Rs. 7,68,100 payable to the petitioner. However, the petitioner had pointed out that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er-company could not recover the amount despite the service of notice under sections 433 and 434 of the Act. Hence, the petitioner-company has filed the present petition for winding up of the respondent-company. The respondent-company received the notice issued on behalf of the petitioner and sent reply dated August 10, 1998, annexure P-34 to the petition. No dispute whatsoever was raised. The said reply reads as under: "Dear Sir, Under the instructions of my client, Euro Cotspin Ltd., Lalru Office, receipt of legal notice dated 16-5-1998, sent by you through your advocate Sh. Chetan Mittal, is acknowledged by my client. On receipt of further instructions from my client, I would revert to the subject for detailed reply. Yours faithful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised by the respondent-company with regard to the supply and/or quality of the material during this entire period. Another factor which cannot be ignored by the court is that on April 13, 1998, admittedly the respondent-company had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Lalru, District Patiala, which was dishonoured on presentation. Thereafter, a bank draft/pay order for the said amount was issued in lieu of this cheque on May 2, 1998. If the material supplied by the respondent-company was found to be defective one could hardly see any justification for making the payment to the petitioner as late as in May, 1998. Strange enough, no reference has been made either to the cheque or to the bank draft in eithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny that the material was defective. Annexures R-1 to R-3 relate to the supply after April, 1998. In other words, there is no evidence on record whatsoever to show that the material supplied was of poor quality. Having received the notice under sections 433 and 434 of the Act, there was an obligation on the part of the respondent-company to plead its complete case in reply to the notice. The respondent-company opted to keep silent by giving a reply, which would be least expected from a limited company. The reply was not even sent in routine but was sent through counsel. The court would be justified in drawing adverse inference against the respondent-company. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the respondent-company has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
