9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sites in district Murshidabad (West Bengal) and Kahalgaon, district Bhagalpur (Bihar). The project manager of the respondent-company Shri B.K. Bose is stated to have issued a certificate dated 15-1-1996, a copy of which is annexed to the petition as annexure P-1, that the respondent-company was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,15,873. While on account of supplies made at Bhagalpur (Bihar), the petitioner relies upon annexure P-2 annexed to the petition, a statement of reconciliation which has been signed by the representative of the respondent-company, i.e., Mr. M. Pahari and Mr. Sarvan Singh, project manager and site in-charge, wherein it is stated that supplies to the extent of Rs. 13,75,628.66 were received by the respondent-company and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 26, 1996 2,00,000.00 11,75,628.66 ( ii ) Supplies made during April 30, 1996, to November 30, 1996, as detailed in para 7 above 45,744.07 Total 14,37,245.73". Thereafter, the petitioner served a notice under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 ( the Act ) on 10-10-1997, copy of which is annexed as annexure P-19 to the petition, which was sent by registered acknowledgement due as well as under certificate of posting. In spite of due service of the notice on 13-10-1997, as is clear from the copy of annexure P-21 annexed to the petition, the respondent-company has failed to pay the dues of the petitioner, thus compelling the petitioner to approach this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not a correct document and its original should be ordered to be produced in the Court. 3. Replication was filed to the reply/written statement reiterating the stand taken in the main petition. During the course of hearing, original documents including the original of annexure P-6 were produced in the Court. 4. There could be no dispute as to the legal proposition that the disputed questions requiring detailed and varied evidence may not be gone into by the company court while entertaining the petition for winding up of a company, as it could not be treated as an alternative for a regular suit but it is an equally well-settled principle of law that the defence of the respondent-company including in relation to the maintainability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n annexed with the petition various amounts have been stated to be due from the respondent-company. The accounts were not settled. The petitioner-company ought not to have rushed in filing the winding-up petition. It is denied that letter dated 24-7-1997, was received by the respondent-company. It is clear that the petitioner-company has not settled the accounts with the respondent-company as they have been claiming in the various letters different amounts and had never cared to settle the matter or their outstanding with the respondent-company. Only an amount of Rs. 3.74 lakhs is outstanding as per the respondent-company. The respondent-company cannot be held liable to pay for the rental charges or the different rates that the petitioner c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this stage that each of the points of the meeting has been explained and affirmed in the handwriting of the representative of the respondent-company. It was clearly consented therein that the dues of the petitioner would be paid. 6. The original of the aforestated documents have been placed on record and the bare reading of these documents do not indicate any interpolation or overwriting which could create a doubt as to the genuineness of these documents. The documents apparently have been executed in the normal course of business and it is primarily the difficulties of the respondent-company because of which it could not clear the dues for all this time and had been assuring the petitioner that the dues will be cleared within a short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case, the receipt of the notice has been duly proved. The written statement has also been filed on behalf of the respondent-company. In paragraph No. 12 of the reply/written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-company, it has been admitted that the notice was served and received by the Managing Director of the respondent-company. Admission of this fact cannot be ignored for the purposes of determining this controversy. Once notice is received by the respondent-company, may be through its Managing Director, and this fact is admitted, there would be substantial compliance of the provisions of section 434. The notice served under sections 433 and 434 had clearly given all the facts. The period of 21 days was also specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
