9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n advance to be given by AHLCON to the respondent. This shows that the petitioner was kept in the loop. correspondence between the petitioner and AHLCON and copies being marked to the petitioner in respect of the initial correspondence entered into between AHLCON and the respondent indicate that the petitioner did render some services to the respondent for which payment was due. As to what exactly was the amount due to the petitioner for the services may be in dispute but the fact that there was a dispute does not in all cases mean that no amount was due by the respondent - there was no justification on its part to dispute the claim that the petitioner rendered services merely on the ground that no formal contract was concluded between the parties. The respondent could not have been unaware that copies of the letters written by AHLCON to it were marked to the petitioner. If no formal contract had been concluded and if the respondent had not engaged the services of the petitioner, the respondent ought to have told AHLCON that the petitioner had nothing to do with the hotel project and, therefore, copies of the correspondence need not be marked to the petitioner. Moreover, AHLCON ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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) 30.01.2011 December, 2010 2,34,832/- 30.01.2011 January, 2011 6,61,800/- 5. In addition to the above the petitioner also issued receipt for Rs. 1 lakh received by it on 16.12.2010 as advance. The invoices were not paid by the respondent. 6. Reminders were, therefore, issued by the petitioner on 01.03.2011, 21.03.2011, 25.03.2011 and 01.04.2011. In these reminders, the respondent was asked to pay Rs. 21,20,232/- as detailed below: - MRAPL/Seven Seas/Fees Date:1-03-11 To, M/s Seven Seas Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Lawrence Road New Delhi Kind Attn : Mr. Jagannath Sub: - Bill for Project Management Services for Hotel at Mangalam Place, New Delhi. Ref: E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 duties of the petitioner would start from 20.12.2010 on the site. The petitioner was also directed to meet Mr. Sachdeva and Mr. Gupta deputed by the respondent to show the site and meet the contractors. Thereafter, there is a series of correspondence which would prima facie show that the petitioner did commence the rendering of the services for which it was engaged. At page 26 of the petition, there is a letter written by Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as AHLCON‟) to the respondent. AHLCON was the company which was engaged by the respondent for construction of the hotel. A copy of this letter which is dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 21.01.2011 on the subject of the dewatering. The letter states that AHLCON had excavated more than 1500 mm resulting in the sub-soil water coming up. They were advised not to excavate more than 1000 to 1500 mm. The petitioner blamed the lack of supervision of the work by AHLCON pointing out that no engineer was available to check the excavation which was being done at night. 13. The aforesaid correspondence between the petitioner and AHLCON and copies being marked to the petitioner in respect of the initial correspondence entered into between AHLCON and the respondent indicate that the petitioner did render some services to the respondent for which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osal. 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, the respondent did not care to reply to any of these. The respondent also does not deny the receipt of the statutory demand notice. All the objections/ defences to the petitioner‟s claim are taken only in the counter affidavit for the first time. If the respondent really thought that there was no concluded contract and that the petitioner was not engaged for rendering any consultancy services, it ought to have responded to the reminders issued by the petitioner at the earliest. In Resham Singh Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Daewoo Motors India Ltd. : (2003) 66 DRJ 511, Vikramjit Sen, J. (as he then was, of this Court) held that where there is no res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
