9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,00,000/- per month or part thereof; in addition thereto, the travel expenses, boarding and lodging, etc., site office and pantry expenses were also payable. The payment terms were that one month professional fees is to be paid in advance and the invoice payment shall be made within 7 days of the submission thereof. The engagement could be terminated by either side after giving 2 months‟ advance notice. 3. On 18.12.2010, an e-mail was sent by the respondent to the petitioner accepting the proposal and mentioning that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was given in cash as advance. It was also stated that the duties of the petitioner would start at 20.12.2010 and the petitioner shall meet Mr. Sachdeva and Mr. S. C. Gupta, who were deputed by the respondent to show to the petitioner the site and for meeting the contractors. The mobile number of Sachdeva was also given. 4. It is not clear what exactly happened between the petitioner and the respondent thereafter, but it would appear that the arrangement between them was soon terminated. According to the petitioner, invoices were raised by it as per following details: - Date of Invoice For the period Total amount (including service tax) 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e debt. It is stated that the conduct of the respondent shows that its defence is not bona fide or substantial but is mere moon-shine. It is further argued that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the petitioner rendered services for which payment is due. 10. The respondent, however, states that there is no admission of any liability and that though there were certain negotiations between the parties, but no concluded agreement ever came into existence and the terms and conditions were not settled. It is submitted that the petitioner never rendered any consultancy services to the respondent and it has failed to point out as to in what manner the consultancy services were rendered. 11. On a careful consideration of the facts, the material on record and the rival contentions, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for admitting the winding-up petition. The proposal of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent and the fact that there was no contract which was reduced into writing cannot lead to the conclusion that the petitioner did not render any services. The respondent paid an advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner and stipulated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Another letter of the same date written by AHLCON to MRA Associates, the petitioner, relates to the subject of extending the commencement date of the project. AHLCON has stated in the letter that they have not received the structural drawings which was delaying the construction and procurement schedule. A request was made to the petitioner to extend the commencement date of the project. On 14.01.2011 another letter was addressed by AHLCON to the petitioner regarding quotation for cement. The petitioner was requested to approve the quotations for cement and procure the cement as early as possible. There are letters dated 18.01.2011 on the subject of control points and architectural drawings. These letters were addressed to the petitioner by AHLCON. On 25.01.2011, AHLCON again wrote to the petitioner, the subject being the problems due to dewatering. The complaint in the letter is that due to the inefficiency of the dewatering contractor, there is a delay in the schedule which should be considered and extension of the commencement date should be given. A reply seems to have been written by the petitioner on the same day. In this reply there is reference to a verbal discussion on 21.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner‟s services were engaged by the respondent. For the services, the petitioner has to be paid and merely because the amount payable is disputed and is not acceptable to the respondent, it cannot be said that there is no case for winding-up the respondent. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent in the course of the arguments submitted that the petitioner did not submit a list of the various services it had claimed to have rendered, as stipulated in the proposal submitted by the petitioner. The rendering of services is quite different from the submission of the list of the services to the respondent as stipulated in the proposal. The fact that the petitioner did not submit a list of the services rendered by it in terms of its proposal does not take away anything from the fact that the services were actually rendered, if such services can be otherwise proved to have been rendered. Moreover, the conduct of the respondent does not bear scrutiny. It did not reply to the statutory notice sent by the petitioner under Section 434(1)(a). Before the issue of the statutory demand notice, the petitioner sent several reminders through registered post, e-mail, etc.; however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
