9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not lose sight of the unequivocal admission in the affidavit-in-opposition coupled with the Statement of Account referred to above. It is true, the company secured the claim that they did to have an effective hearing of the appeal. If we look to Section 434 of the said Act of 1996, we would find, the Company could resist the winding up petition offering security at the stage of giving reply to the statutory notice of demand, instead they denied the claim. They could also offer security on the first returnable date. They did not opt. After completion of the pleading, in course of hearing when they could not successfully resist the winding up petition, offering security would rather strengthen the presumption that they were neglecting to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or quality goods by standard quality . The respondent was not satisfied with the reply. They filed a winding up petition that the appellant contested by filing affidavit-in-opposition. In the affidavit-inopposition the company annexed a host of correspondence that did not find mention in the advocate s letter of reply. The respondent categorically denied the existence of those correspondence. According to them, those were fake and manufactured, to put up a sham defence to the admitted claim of the respondent. The company filed supplementary affidavit disclosing e-mails that the petitioner did not specifically deny. However, on going through the e-mails nothing much turned on that, at least the learned Single Judge was not impressed. His Lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Ashok Kumar Deora and Baljit Securities Ltd. dated June 26, 2012. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, could not seriously dispute the existence of the e-mails. He would rather contend, the claim was categorically admitted not only in the statement referred to above but also in the affidavit-in-opposition. He would draw our attention to page 31 of the paper book where we find the company stating, The company has never denied that payment of goods worth approximately ₹ 8,22,729.34 was outstanding and had only assured the petitioner to pay off the same in the event the goods supplied were duly replaced by good and proper quality, as required by the company . Relying on the said unequivocal admission he would su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e while giving reply to the statutory notice of admission did not make a mention of the e-mails. Even if we accept the authenticity of the e-mails, it would not specifically raise any constructive defence that could resist successfully a winding up petition. Even if we give some credence to the same, we cannot lose sight of the unequivocal admission in the affidavit-in-opposition coupled with the Statement of Account referred to above. It is true, the company secured the claim that they did to have an effective hearing of the appeal. If we look to Section 434 of the said Act of 1996, we would find, the Company could resist the winding up petition offering security at the stage of giving reply to the statutory notice of demand, instead th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
