9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the claim is based on the orders placed by the respondent-company with the petitioners for releasing certain advertisements in their publication from time to time. All such release orders appeared in exhibit B (page 17 of the paper book). It appears that the respondents are advertising agents for advertisements on behalf of their customers in various publications of the petitioners-company. According to the petitioners, the respondents have failed to make payment to the petitioners for certain release orders. The petitioners therefore issued statutory notice under sections 433 and 434, calling upon the respondents to make payment of the balance amount to the tune of Rs. 5,21,830 with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoices which were raised on the respondents. Shri Shah prays for admission of the petition on an additional ground that another winding up petition has been admitted by the appeal court (Appeal No. 641 of 2000) on 20-9-2000, against the very same respondent-company. He has however, not pointed out any provision of law or any other binding precedent that if one winding up petition is admitted each and every subsequent such petition must get admitted as a matter of course regardless of the disputes raised by the respondent-company and ignoring the provisions of law and the binding precedents of the Supreme Court. Besides, in the petition before the appeal court there was no dispute of the liability and, therefore, the appeal court had admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion the respondents have filed an affidavit repeating more or less the same contentions. It was emphasised that the release orders at item Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 appearing in exhibit B to the petition were fake and were not released by the respondents. It is mentioned in the said affidavit that they were cheated by Time and Space Media Entertainment Promotion Ltd. and that criminal proceedings were filed by it against the said third party. Further, the respondents have alleged that the petition was filed in collusion with the said company by the petitioners though it was known to the petitioners that the said company was liable to make payment and not the respondents. By an order dated 23-8-2000, this Court (Smt. K.K. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y other company. It would be their internal affair with which the petitioners would really be not concerned. The respondents however will have to prove the fact and the allegation that the release orders were really not issued by them or on their behalf. They will also have to prove that the two release orders of the same numbers as stated in paragraph 3, for the item Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 to 20 for which separate bills have been drawn on the same day and that the release orders were unsigned etc. These facts cannot be decided in the company petition. Even the petitioners will have to prove that they had correctly and rightly accepted the release orders in good faith issued by the respondent-company and that they had no concern with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d fake orders which were actually not issued by them but by the third party. This conduct shows the honesty and bona fides of the respondent-company. It accepted the liability at the first instance but on scrutiny it found that the third party had cheated it, the company explained and denied its liability. It has filed criminal complaints against the third party. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the respondent-company has bona fide disputed the debt. Such disputes cannot be decided in the summary proceedings of the winding up petition. It would require full-fledged adjudication and it cannot be decided on the basis of the affidavits. The petitioners will have to file a regular civil suit for recovery of their alleged debt. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebt arising from the commercial or trading transactions for which normal civil remedies are available. The remedy under section 433 and section 434 is certainly not an alternative remedy for the normal civil remedies provided for. This fact has been clarified by section 443. This is the Laxman Rekha defining the just and equitable jurisdiction of the company court under the aforesaid provisions of the Act. Section 443 has delimited the exercise of powers under section 433. 7. The petitioners have filed this petition for recovery of their dues from the respondents. In my opinion as observed by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Hind Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Raghunath Prasad Jhunjhunwalla [1976] 46 Comp. Cas. 91 ; AIR 1976 SC 565, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
