9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordered to be admitted when none appeared for the respondent. On an application for recall of the order of admission, this Court ordered stay of the order of admission on 24-3-2005, on furnishing of bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000. Since the earlier order was ex parte, I have heard learned counsel for the parties as to whether the order of admission is liable to be recalled. 4. The respondent purchased pig iron on 30 days credit basis. The respondent was transacting with the petitioner since April, 1997. All the consignments were being despatched along with the invoice- cum -challan bills in conformity and in compliance with the purchase orders, issued by the respondent. The respondent was accepting the consignments of pig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tituted and formed the very basis for the business activity of the respondent in respect of specific ordered quantity. 6. Reference is made to an order of 150 trucks of pig iron (approximately 2,700 metric tons) out of which respondent received only 36 trucks of quantity (630MT). Since the rates of pig iron went up by Rs. 700 per metric ton, the petitioner stopped supplying the raw material at the negotiated price with the result that the business of the respondent came to be faced with immediate closure. Still further reference is made to a receipt of Rs. 8 lakhs by way of a demand draft by the petitioner for the supply of pig iron and letter dated 8-9-1997, whereby the respondent brought the matter to the notice of the president of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner. The respondent could not afford the closure of its unit for want of raw material. Reference is made to various demands made by the respondent thereafter till May 2000. It was the stand of the respondent that the written notices were sent and the same had neither been pursued nor acted upon. The statutory notice was denied to be received by any authorised person or that it ever came to the notice of the managing director. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and am of the opinion that the defence of the respondent lacks bona fide. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the goods were supplied from the year 1997 till the year 2000. The rates per metric ton varied from Rs. 6,261 to Rs. 7,405 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, then it goes beyond comprehension as to why the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was paid. In annexure R8 demand of Rs. 20 lakhs is reiterated but vide annexure R10, the payment made is of over Rs. 9 lakhs vide three different cheques, two of them being dated 14-1-1999, for the sum of Rs. 3,13,690 and 18-1-1999, for the sum of Rs. 3,31,260. Vide annexure R11 dated 19-12-1998, three post-dated cheques dated 5-2-1999, 21-2-1999 and 24-2-1999, have been issued again for a total sum of over Rs. 4,50,000. Vide annexure R12, the petitioner has sought the return of the four cheques issued in the year 1999. The perusal of the documents produced, leaves no manner of doubt that certain letters particularly annexures R6, R7 and R8 are the letters in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
