9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akshmi on the other part regarding the payment of Rs. 3,53,330. The first party, that is to say, Ch. Savithri, S. Padma and Muralidhar had paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 to the second party, that is to say, Sampat and V. Vijayalakshmi and had agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 2,03,330 shall be paid to them. The manner and the mode of payment was agreed upon between them and the first party had undertaken the pressing work and the amount due to the first party towards charges of pressing work done in the past was also be taken into account in arriving at the value of Rs. 2,03,330 and the first party was entitled to obtain receipt for the same from the second party. There are other terms in the agreement in question with which I am not co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent-company, that mere acknowledgment of liability in the balance-sheet of the respondent-company does not give rise to cause of action, because it is not actually an admission of liability to pay that amount to the applicant and that in pursuance of clause 2 of the agreement dated 6-2-1994, the amount of Rs. 82,500, being the charges of the past pressing work done by the respondent-company, was adjusted against the amount of Rs. 2,03,330 and the applicant did not come forward for pressing work to be done by the respondent-company subsequent to 6-2-1994, and, therefore, the remaining amount could not be adjusted and that the applicant has filed the civil suit on the same cause of action and, therefore, the application for winding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that agreement of which the chairperson and the managing director of the respondent-company was a party has undertaken the pressing work and the amounts due to the first party towards the charges of pressing done in the past shall also be taken into account in arriving at the value of Rs. 2,03,330. In pursuance of this clause, according to the respondent-company, an amount of Rs. 82,500 has been adjusted against the due amount. In para 12 of the affidavit of the petitioner the applicant has admitted that an amount of Rs. 82,500 has been paid, but it is alleged that it was paid through Sampath Industries as a part payment towards agreement dated 6-2-1994. No affidavit on behalf of the said Sampath Industries has been filed in support of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am not inclined to embark upon a detailed enquiry regarding the rival contentions of the parties. On this count only, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. In the case of State Bank of India v. Hegde Golay Ltd. [1987] 62 Comp. Cas. 239 (Kar.), the respondent has admitted the loan amount granted by the petitioner-bank which had also filed civil suit for recovery of the same. In answer to the notice, the defendant had also requested the petitioner time for payment of loan amount. In a company petition, the defendant-company had raised the question of limitation. As also had taken the defence that the civil suit is pending in the civil court. Under the circumstances, it was held by the learned single judge of the Karnataka High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
