9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he loan amount. The loan amount was not repaid, hence the petitioner had presented the post dated cheques issued by the respondent, but the same were dishnoured on the instructions of the respondent. Though the amount was paid by the petitioner as unsecured loan but the respondent is showing in his account the amount as Share Application Money whereas no application for allotment of share was made by the petitioner. The petitioner had sent statutory notice dated 15.1.2011 to the respondent to repay the amount by registered post, speed post and under certificate of posting but the respondent had refused to accept the same. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent is unable to pay the debt, hence the respondent-Company be wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by two Cheques No.090243 and 090244 dated 21.1.2008 each for Rs. 50 Lacs. The receipt of these cheques has not been disputed by the respondent but a plea has been taken that the amount of Rs. 1 Crore was paid by the petitioner for allotment of shares. No application made by the petitioner for the allotment of share has been placed on record by the respondent, nor any such correspondence has been pointed out to show that Rs. 1 Crore was paid by the petitioner to the respondent for the allotment of share. The amount was undisputedly paid in the year 2008 but the record does not reflect that any share was allotted by the respondent to the petitioner-Company or any query was made by the respondent from the petitioner- Company about the persons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich reflects that substrata of the Company has been eroded. The record further reflects that the petitioner had sent the statutory notice dated 15.1.2011 for payment of debt by registered post, speed post and under UCP which the respondent had refused to accept, as is reflected by the endorsement on the returned envelop on Page No.91 and 92. Counsel for the respondent has also raised an objection that no resolution of the Board exists for extending loan to the respondent in terms of Section 372-A of the Act but the said resolution dated 14.1.2008 under Section 372-A of the Companies Act has been placed on record by the petitioner. The reply of the respondent also reveals that the payment of Rs. 1 Crore by the petitioner to the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
