9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an of the respondent-company held a meeting and negotiations for construction of the boundary wall of the company, namely, Indri. The petitioner claims to have done various works for and on behalf of the respondent-company and had a long standing business relationship. The petitioner after constructing the boundary wall submitted the first and final bill dated April 20, 1995, for a sum of Rs. 5,66,624.12 out of which only a sum of Rs. 4,60,017 was paid. However, as the respondent-company failed to clear the balance payment of Rs. 1,06,607.12, the petitioner served a notice upon the respondent-company through its lawyer on June 9, 1997, which was received by the respondents but they did not give any reply to the said notice resulting in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that the contract for construction of the building of the sugar mill was not awarded by the respondent. It may however be mentioned here that in September, 1995, the petitioner abruptly abandoned the project at Patran. The petitioner did not even bother to complete the contract awarded to it by the respondent for construction of the building in village Bhadson. In February, 1995, the petitioner abruptly abandoned the project after constructing only part of the boundary wall. The respondent has suffered huge losses due to the petitioner not completing the project in terms of the contract awarded to it. The petitioner did not even bother to pay the wages of its labour which were at the project site. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , to my mind the petitioner has not been able to discharge its primary onus to show that the above debt is rightly due to the petitioner much less that it was an admitted liability. The court would refuse to admit a petition where there is a bona fide dispute raised by the respondent-company. In the present case, the dispute raised by the respondent to the claim of the petitioner appears to be bona fide and the respondent has also challenged the very correctness of the documents which have been filed by the petitioner on record as non-existent ones. This position, as explained, was not even disputed. No document executed by the respondent-company has been placed on record which the said company could be called upon to answer in its pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... damages. I am of the view that the reliance placed upon this judgment is well founded. It must be noticed that the petition as framed is vague, indefinite and lacks material particulars. It is the obligation of a petitioner to approach the court with a definite case and to place on record all the documents which he relies upon for the purposes of proving his case. Absence of either of them would have to be construed to the disadvantage of the petitioner. The provisions of sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act must be construed not so lightly as to divert the very purpose underlying these provisions. The company would not be unable to pay its debts if it fails to pay the debt alleged to be due which itself is not founded on any cogent p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
