9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 1959. However, publication of the citation and appointment of the provisional liquidator is deferred and one opportunity is given to the respondent company to pay the amount found already due and payable to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 25.02.2015 when the statutory notice was served on the respondent company. The amount be paid within one month failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to publish the citation and apply for appointment of the Provisional Liquidator. - CO.PET. CO.PET. 189/2016 And CA No.1141/2017 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2017 - MR. YOGESH KHANNA, J. For The Petitioner : Mr.Vinam Gupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr.Manish Kaushik, Ms.Ananya Pandey, Mr.L. Sharma, Advocates YOGESH KHANNA J . 1. Respondent placed a purchase order dated 04.05.2013 upon the petitioner company for supply of 57,300 metric tons of Natural Gypsum in bulk through the carrier vessel : MV STELIOS B. The petitioner raised the commercial invoice dated 09.05.2013 for the total consideration of USD 7,44,900 and supplied the agreed quantity of Natural Gypsum in accordance with various bills of lading through sea transp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness arrangement and also about a loss of ₹ 3.60 Crore caused to it, and demanded reimbursement vide email dated 24.03.2015. It is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner company has since been taken over by a new management, - not aware of its earlier arrangements is simply feigning ignorance over the claims of the respondent. The defence is the petitioner is rather liable to compensate the respondent for a sum of ₹ 3.60 crore in view of the investments made by the respondent and for the losses suffered by it on account of breaches. The debt thus is disputed by the respondent. 4. One needs to look into the documents/ correspondence exchanged between the parties to find if the debt is a disputed one. 5. The balance sheets filed by the respondent of the year from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 and from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 show the petitioner to be a creditor to the tune of ₹ 1,02,39,879/-. Strangely in the credit summary of sundry creditors from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 the respondent had shown the petitioner as a debtor to the tune of ₹ 3.60 crore in contrast to the balance sheets of the year from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. However in the list of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ou both the EOD . Also we request you to sent LIA Documents for further processing to avoid any further delay . Regards, Akhil Email dated 01.07.2013 at 01.59PM by Mr.Rohit Khurana of respondent company reads as under:- Dear Mr Alam Already we have send the instruction to the bank for balance payment of MV Stelios B USD 390,000 . But today as per RBI no transactions can be placed, so bankers are unable to do the remittance . We apologize for the delay, tomorrow you will be getting the swift copy of balance payment . Regards, Rohit Email dated 01.07.2013 at 10.17AM reads as under:- lower 54 Dear Jahangir, Full Balance payment has been processed for Stelios B Our team will give you bank acceptance copy as will try to give you swift as well by or before tomon - ow EOD, hereby we request you to kindly send LIA documents as we need to shift material from port . regards . Akhil Email dated 02.07.2013 at 18.06 HRS from Mr.Rohit Khuarana of respondent company reads as under:- Dear Mr Alam, Kindly find the swift copy for remittance of USD 386,261 /- against invoice no . 0089 of M V L1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver raised any objection qua the quality of the goods or deficiency in service. The case now put by the respondent is it has been paying the petitioner not for the purchase of the goods but contributing as an investment and when the petitioner started dealing with ACC directly in connivance with M/s Dhofar it caused huge loss to the respondent. If that was so, then why its emails did not reveal an iota of such averments. Moreso, in its email dated 05.08.2013 the respondent admittedly was transferring an amount of 7,01,500. If the respondent was paying advances or was merely investing in business then why he was promising as a debtor to the petitioner asking for time to clear its dues and making excuses. The respondent, though has annexed an email dated 15.10.2013 raising its concerns of the petitioner dealing with M/s Dhofar but it does not give a hint that respondent was in any way a partner to the petitioner or ever invested any money, as alleged. Another email dated 24.03.2015 of defendant is after receipt of the statutory notice probably given to create a dispute in anticipation of a legal action which could be taken by the petitioner. In rejoinder the petitioner has denied all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
