9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 404 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. No steps under the Sale of Goods Act, 1948 either to reject the supposedly sub-standard goods or seek a diminution of their price appears to have been taken by the respondent company. Obviously the goods in issue as supplied being consumed, they were not sub-standard. A belated half-hearted dispute indicates that the allegation of goods supplied being sub-standard was /is not bonafide and the respondent company has no substance in its defence at all. The defence set up in the reply dated 29.10.2011 to the notice under section 434 of the Act of 1956 was/ is vague and quite apparently is belated one incapable of any credibility. - Decided in favour of appellant. - S.B. Company Petition No. 4/2012 - - - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not of requisite quality. It is submitted that the respondent company having ordered the goods and received them and utilized them was now seeking to wriggle out from its obligations to pay the price thereof which constitutes a debt payable to the petitioner company. It has been submitted that the petitioner company seeking to salvage a lead bargain with a discount purchaser even offered a discount of ₹ 50,000/- to the respondent company on the outstanding due amount but to no avail. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the reply dated 29.10.2011 to the notice under section 434 of the Act of 1956 dated 19.9.2011 indicates that the respondent company in-fact admits to have made only part payment of the pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany on purchase order placed supplied Agro Chemicals (goods) to the respondent company. The commercial relationship between the petitioner company and the respondent company is established from the documents filed with the company petition more particularly the respondent company's reply dated 29.10.2011 to the notice under section 434 of the Act of 1956 at the instance of the petitioner company evidencing that the respondent company received the goods in issue and made part payment thereof. Albeit it has also been alleged, belatedly, that the goods supplied were defective in nature. The fact which arises for attention is that the goods were supplied in August and September 2009 and the objection as to their purported quality was rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
