9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de conditionally in favour of the Respondent. - CP No. 225 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2015 - SANJIB BANERJEE, J. For The Appearing Parties : For The Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv., Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Adv. The Court : The claim of the petitioner is for services rendered to the company in course of the petitioner maintaining automated collection kiosks at 29 locations under the licensing area of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited on behalf of the company. The petitioner claims that there is an amount in excess of ₹ 9.90 lakh in principal that remains payable by the company to the petitioner in respect of the bills raised by the petitioner. The statutory notice was issued on July 16, 2012. In response ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner s personnel managing the kiosks. The company says that a sum of ₹ 12,999/- still remains due and owing from the company to the petitioner, which the company is agreeable to pay off immediately. The petitioner says that the company s defence in its affidavit is at variance with the stand taken in its reply to the statutory notice. The petitioner asserts that since the agreement between the parties did not oblige or authorise the company to pay the personnel engaged at the kiosks by the petitioner, the payment, if any, made to such personnel cannot be adjusted against the bills raised by the petitioner on the company. In addition to the work order issued by the company to the petitioner, the copy bills raised by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot made by the company or that the personnel to whom the company alleged to have made the payments did not receive the same. Though the petitioner contends that the company was not required to make such payment, but the fact that the company may have made the payment and may have adjusted the same against the bills raised by the petitioner on the company cannot be wished away. In this jurisdiction, where the Company Court does not collect the debt on behalf of any creditor but assesses a claim only to ascertain whether the inability or refusal by the company to pay is on account of its commercial insolvency or by reason of a bona fide dispute, the extent of the adjudication is limited. Once it is noticed that a triable issue has been rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
