9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Manish Nigam for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Agarwal holding brief of Sri R.P. Agarwal for the respondent-company. 2. In this creditors winding up petition notices were issued on 25-2-1999. The respondent-company has filed a counter affidavit. Sri S.P. Agarwal made preliminary objection namely that the notice of demand under section 434(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide bill Nos. 79, 80 and 85 in August, 1996, were admitted to be received by the respondent-company. Thereafter supplies were made vide bill Nos. 97, 183, 192 and 198 for which the petitioner-company received all the dues. The business relations continued up to 4-9-1977. 5. The demand relates to the first three supplies vide bill Nos. 79, 80 and85 for Rs. 92,757.51, Rs. 1,37,674.11 and Rs. 2,62,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpanies regarding dishonour of three cheques and that the statutory demand notice is alleged to have been sent after one year of the last supply made by the petitioner-company. This conduct, according to Sri S.P. Agarwal, is not the normal course of business. In case the supplies were not taken back, the petitioner-company would have at least made the demand for the amounts under these dishonoured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
