9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent at 12:12 pm on April 23, 2009 by the company to the petitioner. The company has not questioned the authenticity of the mail. The company had proposed to pay the petitioner its dues in a phased manner between June and September, 2009 in tranches of 20%, 25%, 25% and 30%, respectively. After making the said commitment, the company asserted as follows: "Meanwhile I would request you to please make sure that all claims given to you are processed and reduced from a/r." 3. The petitioner replied on April 24, 2009 forwarding what was called a final counter proposal. The petitioner proposed that the company pay to the petitioner sums of Rs. 49,00,000/- on April 25 and May 15, 2009 and sums of Rs. 71,11,716.55 on the 15th day of the four succ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed by way of adjustment or deduction or otherwise. 8. The statutory notice was issued on October 1, 2010, some 18 months after the last lot of e-mail was exchanged between the parties. The petitioner clamed a principal sum outstanding of Rs. 4,10,03,260.98 and demanded interest at the rate of 24% per annum on such amount. The company responded by a letter of October 20, 2010. The company narrated the relationship between the parties from the year 2000 and spoke of the days prior to the petitioner taking over the business of Compaq. The company complained of several business decisions taken by the petitioner which were detrimental to the company and claimed that the company had suffered loss of business and damages. The company claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner. Yet, on the basis of the mail exchanged at the relevant time, the exact quantum of the company's indebtedness to the petitioner cannot be assessed. The company did not agree to the final counter proposal made by the petitioner on April 24, 2009 nor is any sentence in the company's mail at 12:34 pm on April 24, 2009 capable of being understood to have, in any manner, acceded to the petitioner's counter proposal or admitted the amount claimed by the petitioner. 11. While it is evident that vague claims under several heads have been made by the company upon receipt of the statutory notice, it cannot be lost sight of that for a petition to be admitted in this jurisdiction, the petitioner has ordinarily to, not only show that a sum in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
