9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, is not disputed. The company by a letter dated July 12, 2002, addressed to M/s. Manoj Dhupelia Stock Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. with a copy endorsed to the petitioning creditor asked for adjustment of the amount being the subject-matter of the present petition as against their claim against the said Manoj Dhupelia Stock Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the stock broking company). The said letter was replied to by the stock broking company on September 2, 2002, by saying that the enclosures in the said letter did not disclose sufficient details and, as such, they asked for reconciliation statement. The petitioning creditor on the next date being September 3, 2002, reacted by saying as follows : "The deposit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the application for amendment was pending before the interlocutory court. Hence, I adjourned the hearing of this matter to enable the parties to have the application for amendment adjudicated upon and disposed of by the learned interlocutory judge. Ultimately, Sub-hro Kamal Mukherjee J. by his Lordship's judgment and order dated September 13, 2004, allowed the application for amendment and added the petitioning creditor as a party defendant in the said suit. The matter was thereafter heard by me on September 14, 2004, when it was contended before me by the petitioner that the very basis of the defence in this winding up proceedings as well as the application for amendment was the letter dated October 7, 2003. Despite repeated requests ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion relied on two decisions of this court in the cases of Dunlop India v. Anamika Udyog [1994] 1 CHN 409 and Vinayak Oil and Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Andre (Cayman Islands) Trading Co. Ltd. [2004] 2 WBLR Cal. 489. Mr. Mitra also contends that the amount was paid to secure the claim of the company on account of purchase of government securities. He also draws my attention to the forwarding letter which would show that there was no mention of payment of interest. He lastly contends that the company is a solvent company and a public utility concern and this court should not exercise its discretion to admit the winding up petition. Mr. S.P. Sarkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioning creditor in reply, submits that since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner himself as Mr. Sarkar in his usual fairness, on instruction, submits that the said company is being controlled by the petitioning creditor and his family members. Hence, if one lifts the corporate veil there might be a chance of success in respect of the defence raised by the company, specially when the interlocutory court allowed addition of the petitioning creditor as a party defendant in that suit. In such view of the matter, it would be proper for me to wait till the disposal of the suit. Hence, the winding up petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the court again after disposal of the suit or in case the petitioning creditor is deleted from the cause title of the suit being Civil Suit No. 49 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
