9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present case as it involves disputed questions of fact and would require evidence to be led. Certainly, the defence set out by the respondent in its reply to the statutory notice cannot be said to be a moonshine or sham. - Consequently, the present petition dismissed - CO. PETITION NO. 63 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2012 - MANMOHAN, J. Sunil K. Mittal, Kshitij Mittal and Pranav Rishi for the Petitioner. Vinay Bhasin and H.L. Raina for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. Present winding up petition has been filed under Section 433(e) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 stating that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debt allegedly amounting to Rs. 17,26,952/-. 2. The facts as stated in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... originally used to raise the bills on M/s. Indian Handicrafts but subsequently, petitioner raised the same bills on the respondent-company as some of the fabric which was supplied to the M/s. Indian Handicrafts was used by the respondent-company. 6. Mr. Bhasin referred to petitioner's own ledger to show that payments received from respondent's sister concern, namely, M/s. Indian Handicrafts had been adjusted by the petitioner in the accounts of the respondent-company. Therefore, he submitted that in order to ascertain as to whether any amount was due and payable, a consolidated account of all the four parties had to be taken into consideration. 7. Mr. Bhasin submitted that the letter dated 26th March, 1998 relied upon by the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent in its letter dated 26th March, 1998. Mr. Bhasin stated that said application was dismissed by this Court on 3rd January, 2003 on the ground that respondent had set up a positive defence which denied the petitioner's entitlement to claim relief. 10. Mr. Bhasin lastly contended that if the consolidated account of all the four companies/firms were taken into consideration along with aforesaid debit notes, then no amount was due and payable to petitioner by the respondent or its sister concern M/s. Indian Handicrafts. According to him, on the contrary it was the respondent-company and its sister concern who were entitled to recover Rs. 4,95,218.15 from the petitioner. 11. Though the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were later transferred and also raised on the respondent-company with the same bill number, amount and date. 14. In fact, this Court in Pankaj Aluminium Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., [2011] 107 SCL 113/11 taxmann.com 47 after relying upon DHN Food Distributors Ltd. v. London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1976] 3 ALL ER 462 at Page 467 has recognised the doctrine of single economic entity. In DHN Food Distributors Ltd. ( Supra ), it was held as under:- " ..We all know that in many respects a group of companies are treated together for the purpose of general accounts, balance sheet and profit and loss account. They are treated as one concern. Professor Gower in his book on company law says : 'there is e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent-company. In fact, in the recovery suit filed by the petitioner's sister concern, petitioner's application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC was dismissed for a similar reason. The relevant portion of the said order dated 3rd January, 2003 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "13. Reverting back to the facts of the case, as already observed, although there appears to be no denial to the letter dated 26th March, 1998, however the defendant has clearly set up its case in the written statement, and in the reply by way of a stand to the effect that in view of the debit notes dated 30th June, 1998, the plaintiff is not entitled to any sum of money. Even if the letter dated 26th March, 1998 is deemed to be correct, then the debit notes, as ple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
