9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. 2. The aforesaid direction for payment of the aforesaid amount was passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of a reasoning contained in the judgment under appeal to the effect that the appellant in the affidavit-in-opposition filed to the winding-up application before the learned Single Judge had not disputed the execution of the two promissory notes for Rs. 1 lakh each which formed the basis of the winding up application filed by the respondent petitioning creditor in the Trial Court. 3. To properly appreciate the aforesaid context, we will reproduce hereinbelow the portion of the judgment under appeal which contains the aforesaid reasoning. It reads thus : "It appears that the claim of the petitioning creditor is foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as and by way of accommodation loan is wrongfully alleged or at all. It is also denied that the said Madhukar Jayantilal Kothari executed two promissory notes both dated 1-7-1996 promising to pay to the petitioner on demand or order the aforesaid amount. The annexure being xerox copy of the promissory notes are also denied and disputed and the same are not admitted by the petitioner. It is stated that not a single naya paise has been lent out by the said Ramesh Doshi and/or borrowed by the company. I put said Ramesh Doshi to strict proof showing the payment. The promissory notes are not showing any payment. In the background of the company there is no receipt of the company from said Ramesh Doshi and/or there is nothing due and payable by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntroverting all the relevant assertions of the petitioning creditor, viz., that either any promissory note had been executed or that any consideration had passed. 7. The learned advocate for the petitioning creditor-respondent has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Barrel Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal 1999 (3) SCC 35. After going through this judgment we find that the ratio in this judgment is wholly inapplicable to the facts of this case because this judgment was based upon a fact situation where the defendant had admitted the execution of the promissory note but had averred that the execution was not for valuable consideration received but it was for and by way of a collateral security. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
