9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o wind up the O.P. No. 1, M/s. Indian Colour Sheets Limited (for short M/s. ICSL), to appoint official liquidator to take charge of all assets, properties and all other movable and immovable assets etc. of the O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL and to pay the dues of the petitioner-company by sell or otherwise of the property and assets of the said O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL. 2. Initially, M/s. Indian Colour Sheets Limited was only impleaded as O.P. party to the application. Subsequently, a petition for intervention was filed on behalf of Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (for short BSIDC) to implead it as O.P. No. 2. 3. According to petitioner-company, the O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL approached the petitioner-company for friendly acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1996-1997 50,000.00 Sub Total 10,48,285.62 Interest at the rate of 24 per cent upto31-3-1998 14,38,113.00 Interest at the rate of 24 per cent from 1-4-1998 to 30-11-1999 4,19,314.00 Total 29,05,712.62 (Rupees Twenty nine lakhs five thousand seven hundred twelve and sixty two paise only)" 4. A purported counter affidavit was filed on behalf of O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL accepting the claim with plea that due to financial crises, the O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL could not pay the dues of the petitioner-company as was informed by its letter dated 28th July, 1998. Further plea has been taken that the O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL never refused to pay the dues of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Court refused to take notice of such affidavit by order dated 10th September, 2002 having filed without any leave at the time of conclusion of hearing. 7. The main question is whether the petitioner-company given any loan to O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL which it accepted and such loan can be recovered by filing this petition. In absence of any evidence to suggest that the petitioner-company actually given any such friendly loan to O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL, this Court vide order dated 11th June, 2002 allowed the petitioner-company to produce the relevant evidence in support of its claim, such as cheques, Bank Draft or any other instrument through which loan amount was paid and accepted by O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL. Inspite of time allowed tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL tried to explain the matter. According to him the loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000 shown to have been repaid/debited on mistaken notion though such amount was actually debited in the account of M/s. Hi Tech Alloys Pvt. Ltd. but such submission cannot be accepted in absence of relevant evidence in support of such oral statement. One can also doubt the authenticity of the ledger book produced before this Court, many of the entries at page 1 and 6 having made in same ink and pen. 10. In the facts and circumstances, there being no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner-company given friendly loan of Rs. 10,48,285.62 paise to O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL, nor there being any evidence of acknowledgement of receipt of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
