9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m from the respondents. It is on instructions of the respondent that the goods were delivered to IOCL. Delivery was affected when instructions were received from the respondent to deliver the goods. Even if we accept the plea of the respondent regarding the imposition of liquidated damages of ₹ 1,70,700/- by IOCL, the fact remains that the respondent remains liable to pay a sum of ₹ 5,71,350/- minus liquidated damages of ₹ 1,70,700/- being a total of ₹ 4,00,650/-. There is no explanation as to why the said amount of ₹ 4,00,650/- has not been paid by the respondent to the petitioner. In my view, the minutes dated October 2013 clearly shows that the respondent has accepted its liability to the above effect. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Khatri and Ms. Sonam Bharti, Advocates JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral) CA No.825/2018 In compliance with the last order of this court dated 15.03.2018, Mr. Ravi Prakash Aggarwal, the Managing Director of the respondent company has placed on record an affidavit along with an application being CA No.825/2018 seeking condonation of delay of 01 day in filing the accompanying affidavit. The application is allowed and the delay of one day in filing the accompanying affidavit is condoned. The affidavit is taken on record. CO.PET. 556/2013 1. This petition is filed under Sections 433 (e), (f), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking to wind up the respondent company. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct matter of a winding up petition; (ii) He also points out that the petitioner has caused untold delay for the delivery of the goods on account of which the customer to whom goods were to be delivered, namely, Indian Oil Corporation Limited had imposed liquidated damages for a sum of ₹ 1,70,700/-. He submits that these damages occurred on account of the acts of the petitioner and hence the present winding up petition would not arise. (iii) He further submits that the statutory notice was issued by the petitioner on 06.08.2013. By that date, he pleads that the goods had not yet been delivered by the petitioner meaning thereby that the amounts were not due and hence the statutory notice is not valid and cannot be the basis fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garding the imposition of liquidated damages of ₹ 1,70,700/- by IOCL, the fact remains that the respondent remains liable to pay a sum of ₹ 5,71,350/- minus liquidated damages of ₹ 1,70,700/- being a total of ₹ 4,00,650/-. There is no explanation as to why the said amount of ₹ 4,00,650/- has not been paid by the respondent to the petitioner. In my view, the minutes dated October 2013 clearly shows that the respondent has accepted its liability to the above effect. 8. I may deal with another contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. He has pleaded that the winding up petition was filed before the delivery of goods, namely, in September 2013. He submits that the documents now relied upon are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in which they are kept shall be sealed by him. At the same time, he may also seek the assistance of a valuer to value all assets to facilitate the process of winding up. It will also be open to the Official Liquidator to seek police help in the discharge of his duties, if he considers it appropriate to do so. The Official Liquidator to take all further steps that may be necessary in this regard to protect the premises and assets of the respondent-company. 11. However, in the interest of justice, the above order appointing the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator shall stand suspended for a period of six weeks in case the respondent made the necessary payment to the petitioner of a sum of ₹ 4,00,650/- with simple inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
