9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent - Company and is not paid-off, despite service of statutory notice, this jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for exerting any kind of pressure on the Respondent - Company. This Court is satisfied that in the present case, the present winding-up petition does not merit admission and therefore, with liberty to the petitioner - Firm to avail alternative remedy by way of a Civil Suit, the present winding- up petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. - CO. PETITION NO. 157/2015 - - - Dated:- 25-11-2016 - DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. For The Petitioner. : Mr. Sunil P. Prasad, Adv. For The Respondent : S.P. Kulkarni, Adv. ORDER 1. The petitioner - M/s. Praxis Inc. (hereinaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired to be paid as the petitioner - Firm did not render the 'Professional Services' for the Phase-II of the project of the Respondent - Company. 4. Paragraph 7 of the said Statement of Objections is quoted below for ready reference- 7. It is submitted that with respect to the averments made at para-13 of the petition that, out of the aforesaid items agreed under Work Orders the balance amount of ₹ 99,08,205/- remained as outstanding amount as on the date of petition etc., are all erroneous and wrong and also equally false. The said averments cannot be accepted in law in as much as the project itself was not completed and also the services were not fully rendered by the petitioner Company. As the Phase-I project itsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd phase of the project for which the petitioner's services were not continuously engaged by the Respondent - Company. This would also appear from the communication, Annexure H, E-mail dated 27/03/2014 written by one Mr. Ajit Jain, from petitioner - Firm to Mr. Ashok M., who was only a middleman and not the Director of the Respondent - Company, in which it shows that the petitioner - Firm had only submitted the architectural details, drawings of soft copy for Phase-II also and was awaiting the instalment of fees of ₹ 05.00 lakh per month, but the payments were not made to them nor the Respondent - Company or the said Agent was giving any response to the petitioner - Firm. 7. Therefore, it appears that the agreement between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
