9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Anoop V. Mohta, J . The petitioner, a Government of India Enterprise, has invoked the provisions of sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act"), as in spite of the service of statutory notice, the respondent-company failed to make the payment of Rs. 3,68,29,634.91 (rupees three crores sixty eight lakhs twenty nine thousand six hun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thousand eight hundred and forty nine only). Both are dishonoured. The proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are pending. On October 21, 1999, the petitioner again called upon the respondent-company to make the payment. On March 31,1999, a demand promissory note has been executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2,83,70,700.91 (rupe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rporation and as the respondent admittedly signed demand promissory note at the time of each supply of raw material, and as no payment has been made by the respondents, even under the letter of credit, the liability to make the payment remained unpaid. The primary responsibility of the respondent-company to make the payment in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-company was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cient cause made out by the petitioner for winding up of the respondent-company. The authorities as cited by learned counsel appearing for the respondents are totally distinct and distinguishable on the facts itself. The allegations of fraud against the petitioner though raised, just cannot be reiterated first time in the present proceedings. The defence so raised, in any way does not appear to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
