9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent-company some time on 8th May, 2000, approached the petitioners and requested for finance and accordingly, the petitioner-company had agreed and agreement dated 8th May, 2000, was entered between the parties. The respondent-company defaulted and made late payment of the instalments, in spite of the said agreement. On 6th May, 2000, prior to the execution of the loan agreement, the respondent had undertaken to make the payment, within the time period specified in the schedule contended in the loan agreement. On 11th June, 2002, pursuant to the request of the respondent-company, a one-time settlement was agreed on the condition mentioned in the letter dated 11th June, 2002. The respondent-company committed default again and failed and negl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To this petitioner-company has filed sur-rejoinder dated 18th November, 2003. In all, parties have reiterated their respective stands. 4. After considering the arguments raised and submitted by the parties, there is no doubt that the respondent-company has failed to make the payment, in spite of statutory notice and those liabilities are still pending. The defence raised by the respondent-company is not bona fide and genuine, and cannot be sufficient to dismiss the present petition, as prayed. 5. There is admittedly, no reply filed, sent or issued by the respondent-company to the statutory notice dated 3rd August, 2002. There is basically no denial to the averments made in the said statutory notice. It appears that there is no di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tpone the payment and/or winding up order. In spite of their affidavit respondent-company failed to furnish the requisite material and the documents. The combined loan outstanding against the respondent-company is of more than 200 crores. In view of this, the defence, as raised by the respondent-company cannot be accepted. One cannot overlook the cheques Exh. "C" filed along with the affidavit and rejoinder, dated 24th July, 2003, filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the defence of the respon- dent-company, that after adjusting the amount, the respondent-company is entitled to receive some money from the petitioner-company is not bona fide or in good faith. All these averments have no foundation or supporting documents. Therefore, the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
