9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 for ₹ 3,00,000/, according to company, is towards the last invoice dated 29th September 2012 which was for ₹ 3,30,000/and the payment made on 19th December 2015 for ₹ 1,65,000/was towards the 26th invoice mentioned in the list dated 19th July 2012 for ₹ 1,65,000/. The amount paid on 16th December 2014 of ₹ 2,56,779/if accepted as an adhoc payment, still some of the invoices raised will be barred by limitation. If one considers the statement of outstanding filed by petitioner, invoice at Sr.No.1 was due on 1st April 2011 and the invoice at Sr.No. 11 was due on 13th December 2011 and these payments have been made beyond the three years period. Therefore, we cannot dismiss the stand of respondent as moonshine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition. 4. Respondent company admittedly did not reply to the statutory notice but has filed an affidavit of one Manoj Agarwalla affirmed on 1st September 2017 and raised the following defences : (a) Petitioner has not annexed copies of the Goods Consignment notes; (b) Copies of invoices referred in the petition were not acknowledged by respondent nor duly certified by respondent and petitioner though put to strict proof failed to show invoices were raised on the company and delivered to the company; and (c) petition is barred by limitation. 5. There is an order dated 27th September 2017 recording that petitioner is not desirous of filing a rejoinder. So far as the first defence is concerned, I would have expected petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the payment made on 19th December 2015 for ₹ 1,65,000/was towards the 26th invoice mentioned in the list dated 19th July 2012 for ₹ 1,65,000/. 7. The amount paid on 16th December 2014 of ₹ 2,56,779/if accepted as an adhoc payment, still some of the invoices raised will be barred by limitation. If one considers the statement of outstanding filed by petitioner, invoice at Sr.No.1 was due on 1st April 2011 and the invoice at Sr.No. 11 was due on 13th December 2011 and these payments have been made beyond the three years period. Therefore, I cannot dismiss the stand of respondent as moonshine since claims under the invoices may be barred by limitation. In such facts and circumstances, I cannot conclude that there is a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
