9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a notice of motion, the same is a matter of procedure. It is settled law that the procedure is the handmaid of justice and the defect in this application is cured by directing the petitioner to pay costs assessed at ₹ 10,000/- to the State Legal Services Authority. Subject to payment of costs by the petitioner, as directed above within December 18, 2017, the winding up application is admitted for ₹ 25,31,990/-, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% from the month of December, 2016. If, the company pays the amount of ₹ 25,31,990/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% from the month of December, 2016 to the petitioner within January 15, 2018, the winding up application shall stand permanently staye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intainable on the ground that no Judge s summons has been taken out and the petitioner has filed this application by taking out a notice of motion. However, according to the petitioner, there was some error in calculation of of the outstanding dues payable by the company in the first two notices dated June 6, 2016 and July 1, 2016 and, as such, by a third notice dated September 3, 2016, issued under Section 434 of the Act of 1956, the petitioning creditor called upon the company to pay off its actual dues of ₹ 31,76,295.68 p. As the company has consciously chosen not to file any affidavit-in-opposition, the doctrine of non traverse comes into applies in the present case. Therefore, the receipt of all the three notices issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 828.60/-. The company even did not respond to this letter. In all the said three notices issued under Section 434 of the Act of 1956 the petitioner claimed interest at the rate of 18%, per annum on its outstanding dues from the company. As mentioned earlier, in spite of obtaining repeated opportunities from this court to file its affidavit- in- opposition in this application the company has not filed the same. Thus, in view of the doctrine of non-traverse, I find that the petitioner s entire claim in this application for the principal sum of ₹ 25,31,990.75/-, as mentioned in the notice dated September 03, 2016 is deemed to have been admitted by the company. In this application filed in the month of November, 2016 the petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
