9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by way of advance by the petitioner to the company in respect of the three purchase orders. The company supplied materials against two of the purchase orders. After adjusting the company s bills of Rs. 11,35,650 against the supplies made, the balance of the advance made remained refundable. A sum of Rs. 86,341 was thereafter paid by a cheque dated 13-1-2004. The petitioner has claimed the balance amount after giving credit to the company for the part payment of Rs. 86,341. The balance principal sum claimed is Rs. 3,28,044, though the figures Rs. 11,35,650, Rs. 3,28,044 and Rs. 86,341 do not add up to Rs. 15,50,000. 3. The petitioner s first demand, relied upon in these proceedings, was by a letter issued by its advocate on 22-3-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner had claimed that after adjusting a sum of Rs. 11,35,615 against supplies effected, a sum of Rs. 4,14,385 still remained with the company. The petitioner complained of the company s failure to supply the goods in terms of the third purchase order. 6. It is of some significance that the company s alleged response was issued after more than three months. This is more surprising in view of the first sentence contained in the alleged letter of 31-7-2004. If, indeed, the company was shocked to receive the letter of 5-4-2004, it should have reacted immediately and not waited for nearly four months to express its shock. 7. The alleged letter of 31-7-2004, runs as follows : "Dear Sir, We are in receipt of your letter dated 5-4-2004, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said amount of Rs. 1,38,048 immediately. We are enclosing herewith a schedule to substantiate our claim. Thanking you." 9. As if the contents in the body of the letter were not enough, the petitioner was emphatically reminded of the "many telephone calls and personal visits" claimed to have been made on behalf of the company. 10. The dates of the two alleged letters are significant, just as the petitioner s immediate response upon such alleged letters being asserted, was. The petitioner claimed to have received two letters and, in a supplementary affidavit has disclosed the two letters it has received. The first of the two letters is dated 26-7-2004, and the second is dated 18-1-2005. Both letters are bland demands for supply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e postal acknowledgement card relied upon by the company in its affidavit as being the one evidencing service of the alleged letter of 18-1-2005, was proof of service of the second reminder relating to the sales tax declaration form. 15. The two letters set up by the company in defence are not credible. It is difficult to believe that nearly four months after the letter of 5-4-2004, was received by the company, it woke up from its slumber to react with shock in end-July, 2004. There has been no subsequent assertion of the stand allegedly taken by the company in the purported letter of 31-7-2004, prior to the alleged letter of 18-1-2005. It is inescapable that the date of the second letter relied upon by the company was chosen inasmuch a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
