9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (5) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... putes, if disputes those can be called, are raised with regard to the other five bills respectively dated April 27, 1992, May 2, 1992, May 11, 1992, May 12, 1992 and again May 12, 1992. The claims on the six bills aggregate in the principal ₹ 13.75, lakh approximately. 3. It is the admitted position between the parties that they have had transactions from the year 1988 and that there were no substantial disputes between the parties for the period ending with the financial year 1991-1992, i.e.; until the expiry of the month of March 1992. 4. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has been stated that upon an accounting being taken for the current financial year, i.e. 1992-1993, not more than a sum of ₹ 1,94,355 would be found to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-opposition. 8. Also in the answer to the statutory notice the company referred to writing of three letters on its behalf during the all important period of April-May 1992, when the five bills were made out and sent and mentioned the dates of those letters as April 29, 1992, April 30, 1992 and May 13, 1992. Though the dates are so specifically mentioned these letters are conspicuous by their absence. Mr. Mitter did not even seek to produce copies during argument. The only possible inference, therefore, is that during the, latter part of April 1992 and the month of May 1992 the company received the bills but kept totally silent about those. Considering that the aggregate claim in those five bills would come to about ₹ 10 lakhs, suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding up application is a wholly inappropriate remedy. Indeed in such a case it has been termed as an abuse of the process of Court. Mr. Mitter correctly relied in this regard for support of the above proposition upon the case of Bengal Flying Club 1966 (2) C.L.J. 212 (218) inter alia and placed the second paragraph of the judgment in the case. 12. The other proposition in receiving winding up applications is that the Company Court shall dispel any unsubstantial smoke screen, if that is only what is being sought to be raised by the company to hide the debt from the eyes of the Court. Such disputes are not worth the name of a dispute. The doubts raised in argument about there being no weighment bridge records to support weight of the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in spite of raising of pretended disputes. 15. Another example of such a pretended dispute, or a thickening of the smoke screen would be an attempt by the company to enter into accounts as to the dues which were carried forward from the financial year ending on March 31, 1992. According to the company, they carried forward the debit of ₹ 28,000 and odd. According to the petitioning creditor it was ₹ 54,000 and odd, which was fully paid off. The company's case was that ₹ 54,000 was paid not for liquidating the earlier year's liabilities but as a loan. Again it is only a mala fide attempt to create confusion in regard to the five bills, the goods for which were obviously supplied and accepted but not paid for. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
