9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strict Sirmaur. 2. Briefly, the averments made in the petition are these. The respondent-company had approached the petitioner-company through Messrs Ratna Vanijya Paper and Board Merchants, for the supply of 10 mt. kraft paper vide confirmed order dated April 1, 1997, at the agreed rate of Rs. 14.05 paise per kg. In pursuance of such order the petitioner-company supplied kraft paper worth Rs. 1,34,793 to the respondent-company vide invoice dated April 10, 1997. As per the terms of the invoice vide which the supply of kraft paper was made, payment for the supply was to be made by the respondent-company within seven days of the receipt of the consignment failing which interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum was to be charged. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding up petition is not a legitimate means to enforce payment of a debt which is bona fide disputed by the company. A petition filed ostensibly for a winding up order but really to exercise pressure will be dismissed, and under circumstances may be stigmatised as a scandalous abuse of the process of the court. ( See Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P.) Ltd. v. A.C.K. Krishnaswami [1965] 35 Comp. Cas. 456 (SC). 5. In T. Srinivasa v. Flemming (India) Apotheke (P.) Ltd. [1990] 68 Comp. Cas. 506, it has been held by the High Court of Karnataka that it is not for the court hearing a petition for winding up under section 433 of the Act to assess evidence and refuse a decree or to draw up a decree in favour of the petitioner and then t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition. It is a case of sale of goods and unless the payment is to be made on a stipulated date, the cause of action to the petitioner-company, if any, to recover the price of goods had arisen on April 10, 1997. The requisite period of limitation of three years to recover the price of goods expired on April 9, 2000. The present petition was filed on June 27, 2000. On the face of it, the claim of the petitioner was barred by time as on the date of the present petition. 9. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner-company that the claim is within time as on the date of petition in view of the acknowledgement made by the respondent-company vide its letter dated July 18, 1998 (copy of which is annexure P-15 to the petition) read with l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
