9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the period commencing from 01.06.2000 and the rejection of the same is indicated in the statement maintained by the respondent at Ex.D2 for the period from 01.07.2000 to 31.07.2000 - claim as made in the application has not been proved. - COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 23 of 2007, CO. P NO. 166 of 2001 & Others - - - Dated:- 15-3-2012 - A.S. BOPANNA, J. K.S. Mahadevan and V. Jayaram for the Applicant. S.R. Kamalacharan for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The Official Liquidator on behalf of the Company in liquidation has filed the instant application under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act read with Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules, 1959. By the said application, a sum of Rs. 6,47,394/- with interest thereon has been claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the Company-in-liquidation and the respondent has not been denied. However, with regard to the claim made in the application, the respondent-company has adverted to the same and have contended that though certain machines were supplied by the Company-in-liquidation to the respondent, in respect of the machines that were in good order, the respondents have paid and discharged the amount. Certain other machines which did not conform to the requirements have been rejected and the rejection entries have been noted in the accounts maintained by the respondent-company. It is therefore contended that the respondent is not liable to pay the amount as claimed. But, on the other hand, on reconciliation of the accounts, the Company-in-liquidat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icated by the respondents in their accounts for the relevant period to show that the payment is not due as the machines supplied had been rejected by them. The witness has admitted his ignorance with regard to the said aspect of the matter. 7. Keeping in view the nature of evidence tendered by PW1 and certain admissions made in his cross-examination, a reference to the evidence tendered by one Sri G. Mukund working as Deputy General Manager (Finance) in the respondent-company, who was examined as RW.1, would indicate that the said witness has made specific reference to the invoices under which the supplies were made was rejected and also with regard to the payments made relating to other invoices and which has been shown as credits in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -in-liquidation, from the entries pointed out in Ex.P2 itself it would indicate that relating to certain invoices credit has been shown in the said statement which has been claimed as due subsequently. Further with regard to the other invoices which has been shown as debit in Ex.P2, the same have been rejected by the respondents which as already noticed above has been demonstrated by the respondent. 9. Therefore, keeping these aspects in view, I am of the opinion that the claim as made in the application has not been proved with any other supporting evidence other than the said statement which has been controverted by the respondent by tendering their evidence both oral as well as documentary. Hence the claim is not sustainable. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
