9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing Parties : Sakya Sen, Sukrit Mukherjee, S.R. Kakrania, Sanjeeb Seni, Kousik Chatterjee and Ruby Jaiswal. ORDER:- The Court: The petitioning creditor is an unpaid seller. The purchase order was issued by the company on 7th February, 2012 for supply of the material, description and specification whereof are indicated therein. The aforesaid supply was to be made by 11th February, 2012. The petitioning creditor avers that the goods were supplied to the company and the seal and signature appended on the challan would indicate that the goods were received by the company. The purchase order was issued for a supply of 22,100 kgs of the materials whereas the supply is made to the extent of 20370.50 kgs. It is also not in dispute that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... protest for belated supply. The purchase order does not indicate that in the event the supply is not made within the period the order shall stand cancelled. The company by its conduct accepted the goods which were admittedly supplied beyond the period indicated in the purchase order. The aforesaid objection, in my opinion, cannot be taken or be considered to be a bona fide defence; more particularly when there were no correspondence exchanges between the parties in this regard. Although, the company says that there was a telephonic conversion between the petitioning creditor and the company but the same has been denied by the petitioning creditor. The second objection put forth by the company is in respect of inferior quality of the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company to spend a larger money for that purpose but there is no documentary evidence annexed to the said affidavit in relation thereto. In my opinion, the so called dispute, sought to be raised by the company, is sham and bogus and is only with an intent to avoid the company to be liable for being wound up and, therefore, this Court finds that the company has not made out any bona fide defence warranting the court to relegate the parties to regular civil proceedings. This Court, therefore, finds that the company has unreasonably and illegally withheld the legitimate dues of the petitioning creditor and has unable to pay its debt. The winding up petition is, thus, admitted, for a principal sum of Rs.10,67,430/- together with inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
