Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (8) TMI 725

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct was sought to be rectified by giving it to another agency. Handing over for reworking to another agency was only due to the fact that the products received by the respondent was defective. Therefore, it cannot be held that there is a debt and that has been admitted or the respondent is liable to pay the debts. The dispute raised is bona fide and not a moonshine. There is enough material to show that the goods were defective. The petitioner having accepted the same has also replied stating that it would rectify the defects. Hence the defence is substantiated by the admission of the petitioner. No claim could be made for defective goods. No amount can be held to be due on account of the defective goods. Petition dismissed. - CO. PETITION .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Engineer and 72 man hours for Project Manager and sent the final consolidated time sheet along with the pro forma invoice on 22.02.2010. The said invoice is marked at Annexure C. The respondent admitted the services through an email dated 23.09.2010 and the same is produced, at Annexure-D. Having completed its performance obligations, the petitioner raised an invoice dated 23.09.2010 for an amount of Rs. 8,75,341/-, produced at Annexure-E. Various correspondence were done thereafter. In spite of various correspondence, the respondent failed and neglected to pay the outstanding amount. Having no other alternative, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 28.03.2011 to the respondent which was duly served on him. The copy of the legal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petitioner to rectify the defects. Since the petitioner failed to rectify the mistakes, the respondent had to rework on the products and hence approached HAL for reworking the defective products. The respondent reworked on the defective produced with HAL and due to which it incurred huge expenditure. It is further contended that there was delay in delivery of products to the end-customers resulting in loss of business opportunities. Under these circumstances, it is pleaded that the petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 5. In support of his case, the petitioner relies firstly on the invoice prepared by it vide Annexure-C, dated 23.03.2010 for an amount of Rs. 1,11,273/-. Subsequently, the petitioner sent an email .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he respondent's counsel in their statement of objections wherein it is stated that the design and development was completed and engineering model of the product has been successfully delivered to the client. By placing reliance on the same, it is contended that when the project has been successfully delivered, the question of the petitioner failing to perform their duty does not arise. 9. Heard counsels and examined the material. 10. On hearing counsels and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case. After the invoice was issued to the respondent, notwithstanding the reply of the respondent vide Annexure-F, a letter vide Annexure-R1A has been issued as far as back on 24 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the defence is taken only before this Court is incorrect since the same is evidenced by an email dated 24.09.2009. That the material has been produced to show the huge expenditure incurred by the respondent to rework on the defective products. Notwithstanding the fact that the products were delivered but the same being defective, no claim could be made by the petitioner towards the defective goods. The defect was sought to be rectified by giving it to another agency. Handing over for reworking to another agency was only due to the fact that the products received by the respondent was defective. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that there is a debt and that has been admitted or the respondent is liable to pay the debts. That ther .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates