9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not demonstrated that despite exercise of best diligence the petitioner could not produce the relevant documents at the time that the order dated December 5, 2011 was passed. Appeals were carried from both the order declining to admit the winding-up petition and the one dismissing the review application. The Appellate Court agreed with the views expressed in both the orders, but afforded the petitioning creditor an opportunity to present its best documents for a reconsideration of the claim. Hence the present hearing. 2. The petitioning creditor has used a supplementary affidavit disclosing certain additional documents. The veracity of the additional documents appended to the petitioner's supplementary affidavit has not been questioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany concerned, the petitioner's claim against the company remains. When the petition was taken up for hearing on December 5, 2011, the petitioner could not demonstrate that any no-dues certificate had been issued by the electricity company. Though the petitioner sought to rely on some document, the Court did not permit any new document to be sprung on the company at the hearing. The petition was not admitted because the petitioner could not conclusively demonstrate - though it was required to do so in a matter of this kind and where the claim is assessed on affidavit evidence - that it was entitled to the payment that it claimed. The review petition was dismissed since it appeared that the relevant document was in the possession of the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ists that since the relevant clause in the memorandum of understanding refers to a no-dues certificate being furnished, the money receipt or the other documents relied upon by the petitioner would not suffice and unless the no-dues certificate is shown, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of the balance sum of Rs.1.45 lakh. The company has again, as on December 5, 2011, altogether denied the transaction pertaining to its sister concern and vehemently maintains that the cheque for Rs. 1.45 lakh issued by the sister concern was not in respect of the memorandum of understanding which is the subject-matter of the present proceedings. 9. The company also refers to another clause in the memorandum which requires the petitioner to cooperate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show to resist payment of the sum of Rs.1.45 lakh that was due in terms of the relevant clause of the memorandum of understanding, particularly in the light of the electricity company's letter demanding payment of a particular sum in full and final satisfaction of its claim and the company's acceptance of the veracity of the relevant money receipt. 11. As to the company's reference to the alleged failure of the petitioner to discharge its obligations on account of the provident fund dues of the employees, the relevant clause does not empower the company to withhold any payment on account of the petitioner's failure to cooperate with the company in such regard. The company can demonstrate no more than the vague paragraph in its letter of J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
