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

2013 (2) TMI 315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as not even become due or payable. Even in spite of this, if petitioner initiates any winding up proceedings or any civil suit or any other proceedings, as threatened in notice, he will take all required steps to protect themselves against petitioner illegal actions besides making him responsible and liable for all consequences arising therefrom. The Petitioner has been asked to withdraw the notice and directed to extend the technical support to the Respondent pursuant to the agreement for the sale of design for the process. As decided in Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P) Ltd. v. A.C.K. Krishnaswami (1965 (1) TMI 16 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) that a winding up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8th May 2009, an agreement was entered into between the parties for the sale of design for the process of manufacturing a drug, Atorvastatin‟ for a total consideration of US$ 550,000 to be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner. It is stated by the Petitioner that what was sold to the Respondent was only the design of process‟ which would lead to the production of the drug Atorvastatin‟ and not the sale of the process itself. 3. It is stated that under Clause 3 of the agreement, the Petitioner was to provide all relevant details and technical support to the Respondent to facilitate the validation of the design of the process, the development of the process that leads to the manufacture of Atorvastatin and filing of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - (i) The first part, constituting an amount of US $ 100,000 will be paid within one month of filing of the Patent for the process, i.e. after the end of the time period mentioned under Clause # 2.6. (ii) The second part, constituting an additional amount of US $ 100,000 will be paid by the end of the Quarter, following the quarter in which the first part of US $ 100,000, as detailed in Clause # 4.d.i above, has been paid. (iii) The third part, constituting a further amount of US $ 125,000 will be paid by the end of the next Quarter, following the quarter in which the second part of US $ 100,000, as detailed in Clause 4.d.ii above, has been paid. (iv) The fourth and final part, constituting a further amount of US $ 125,000 will be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and India and the other having been filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. It is stated that since of the total consideration of US$ 550,000, the Respondent has paid only US$ 200,000 and the balance of US$ 350,000 constituted an admitted liability which, despite several reminders, remains unpaid. A legal notice was issued on 26th May 2012 by the Petitioner under Section 433 of the Act. 7. According to the Petitioner, in reply to the above legal notice, the Respondent admitted its liability but raised frivolous and irrelevant issues with malafide intention, in a bid to deflect the attention from the main provisions and the essence of the agreement. 8. It is reiterated by Mr. Ashwini Mata, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Peti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... made responsible and liable for all consequences arising therefrom. The Petitioner has been asked to withdraw the notice and directed to extend the technical support to the Respondent pursuant to the agreement for the sale of design for the process. 10. In Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P) Ltd. v. A.C.K. Krishnaswami 1965 (35) Company Cases 456, the Supreme Court ruled that a winding up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of the debt which is bona fide disputed by the company. A petition presented ostensibly for a winding up order but really to exercise pressure will be dismissed, and under circumstances may be stigmatized as a scandalous abuse of the process of the Court. 11. In M/s. Madhusudan Gordh .....

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