9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,00,000 was presented and bounced. After the said cheque had bounced, the respondent company made the payment for the said cheque. It is clear from the correspondence that there were problems/disputes and parties were talking to each other. I have already quoted above the letter dated 16-12-2009 written by the respondent company, which is a defence raised by the respondent company against the claim of the petitioner. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the alleged debt due is an admitted debt which the respondent company has wilfully failed or neglected to pay. The respondent company has disputed the claim of the petitioner on the grounds and reasons which been set out in the correspondence. The claim of the petitioner canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hines. It is stated that the respondent company had issued post-dated cheques for the instalments mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent company did not respond to the legal notice dated 3-3-2010, in which it was stated that an amount of Rs. 19,50,000 with interest of 3 per cent per month is due and payable towards the balance consideration of the machines, which were supplied/installed. 5. The petitioner has placed on record correspondence which have been written on behalf of the respondent company in the form of letters/e-mails dated 6-11-2009, 16-11-2009, 20-11-2009, 16-12-2009, 18-12-2009, 2-2-2010 and 13-2-2010. In the letters dated 6-11-2009, 16-12-2009 and e-mail dated 13-2-2010 var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... frames, although we have been asking for it from July, 2008 onwards, without clamping frame SP-75 machine cannot be operated for production. 6.Due to absence of claming frame, higher graphite cost per sintering and the machine SP-75 supplied is not as per as you quotation and our purchase order, so we never used it for production. 7.Now you are willing to take back the machine SP-75 since it is not working and supplied as per as our purchase order and also because it is not being used in our production line and due to our complain ( sic ) from July, 2008 onwards. 8.You have offered us a price by reducing the selling value by 60 per cent while taking back the machine since it is one year seven month old from the date of sale and insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the respondent company had given post dated cheques beginning from 17-3-2008 till 20-11-2009. These cheques were not encashed by the petitioner. In fact they were never presented for encashment. There is no explanation and reason why these cheques were not presented. This indicates the dispute. These cheques have lapsed. The reluctance and failure to encash the cheque supports the case of the respondent. Only one cheque dated 20-11-2009 for Rs. 4,00,000 was presented and bounced. After the said cheque had bounced, the respondent company made the payment for the said cheque. It is clear from the correspondence that there were problems/disputes and parties were talking to each other. I have already quoted above the letter dated 16-12-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
