9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Counsel appearing for the parties on the said issue. Upon going through the records, I find that after the aforesaid objection was raised by the respondent, the petitioner has filed an application in this Court enclosing therewith an affidavit, which is in Form 21 and by filing the said application the petitioner seeks for an order to take the said affidavit on record. I see no reason to deny the said liberty to the petitioner as was done by the Supreme Court in the case of Malhotra Steel Syndicate v. Punjab Chemical Plants Ltd. 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 565 wherein in a case of winding up of the respondent company the Supreme Court has held that even if there be some slight defect or irregularity in the filing of the affidavit, an opportu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that is raised by the respondent is with regard to maintainability of the petition for want of an appropriate and valid notice under section 434 of the Companies Act. It is submitted by the Counsel appearing for the respondent that the statutory notice issued by the petitioner to the respondent did not give the respondent 21 days time as required and as provided for under the said section. It is also submitted that the description of the leased equipment, as given in the statutory notice, is different than the one which is given in the petition. I have considered the said submission and the objection raised by the respondent. Admittedly, the present petition was filed in this Court after expiry of 21 days time from the date of issuance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h only three instalments have been paid as against the liability to pay 36 instalments. The leased equipments, in terms of the lease agreement executed by both the parties, are in possession of the respondent. They are enjoying the custody and possession of the said leased equipments for all the years without paying any lease rental as stipulated in the leased agreement, except for making payment of three instalments, as stated hereinabove. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondent states that the agreement in question is a hire-purchase agreement, in terms of which the leased equipments could have been re-possessed by the petitioner in terms of article 16 of the said agreement. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
