9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly due to be paid by the appellant-company to the respondent-company for which an agreement was entered into between the two companies on February 24, 2012, whereby the appellant-company had acknowledged its liability to pay the outstanding amounts in instalments spread over several months between March and October, 2012. The appellant contested the matter by denying its liability to pay the said dues, on the ground that the same were disputed dues and it also raised an objection that since the respondent-company was carrying on business in India with an established place of business in India and having failed to comply with the provisions of sections 592 to 594 of the Companies Act, it would be prohibited from bringing a suit or institutin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etc., within the territory of India or any of its employees are permanently posted in India. The documents on which learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon only goes to show that the respondent-company provides technical service in India by providing spare parts and other technical assistance which would not mean that they have any establishment or office in India but provide such services on demand, as and when required by staff or engineers going to India temporarily for providing such services. As such, we are not satisfied with the objection of the appellant that in such circumstances the respondent-company would be obligated to comply with sections 592 to 594 of the Companies Act, 1956. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petition cannot be faulted. 7. In the end, learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that under the Foreign Exchange Management (Establishment in India of Branch or Office or other Place of Business) Regulations, 2000, there is a prohibition under regulation 3 for establishing branch office in India by a foreign company without prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India. In view of the fact that we have already held above that the appellant has not been able to place any material on record to show that the respondent-company has any office (be it a site office or project office or warehouse or store house) within the territory of India, the provisions of the Regulations of 2000 would not be applicable. 8. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
