9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, there is no case made out by the Petitioner. The Company Petition is dismissed. - COMPANY PETITION NO. 249 OF 2011. - - - Dated:- 10-10-2012 - ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. Mr. Rakesh K. Agarwal, for Petitioner. Mr. Vishal Kanade, a/w. Mr. Himanshu V. Pradhan, i/b. Chitnis Co., for Respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Finally. 2. The Petitioner has invoked under section 433 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25,87,895/. The Respondent Company after due negotiations and discussion, admitted the liability to the tune of Rs. 13,05,654/and disputed the liability to pay balance of Rs. 12,82,241/by letter dated 22nd October 2007. There is no dispute that the Petitioner received Rs. 13,05,654/by endorsing it as full and final payment. 5. The issue was raised later on and basically of the deduction of liq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of time agreed and/or accepted the demand so raised. The agreed amount admittedly paid and received by the Petitioner. The rest of the amount so claimed have based upon disputed facts and the interpretation of the land development agreement inquestion. 7. The other submission that the invocation of liquidated damage costs was contrary to the agreement as the revised work was awarded in October, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Company Petition. 10. I have gone through the various documents and referring to the dates. The claims are beyond limitation even as per the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent. At this stage, not inclined to go into the details in view of the above admitted position on record. The Petitioner is at liberty to take the other remedy, if available. 11. So far as the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
