9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to November, 2014 the petitioner states that he has carried out work of the respondent company to its entire satisfaction and accordingly raised invoices for the work done. Despite completion of the work it is pleaded that payment of Rs. 1,01,38,691/- has not been made. Petitioner claims to have sent emails/SMSes to the respondent. Legal notice was sent on 20.08.2015. Reply was received from the respondent where the respondent has denied the submissions of the petitioner. 2. The respondents have filed their reply. In the reply the respondents state that respondent disputes the amount allegedly outstanding in view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to provide the requisite services as per agreements. It is stated that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.2014 where the respondents have communicated to the petitioner some defects in the work carried out. Based on these documents she submits that there are no admitted dues payable to the petitioner. The work that was done by the petitioner was found to be defective. Some amount she submits would be payable but the same is not quantified. She further submits that Civil Suit will be an appropriate remedy in this case for the petitioner to claim its dues. She relies upon judgment of this court in Focus Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. Second Foundation India Pvt. Limited, (2007) 3 CompLJ127 (Del). 5. I may refer to some of the documents relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record an email dated 22.12.2014 whereby th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being performed by them is defective. In fact what the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon is a communication dated 31.07.2014 allegedly written by the respondent regarding some defects. This communication has been attached by the petitioner themselves. This is the solitary communication which shows some defects were there in the work done by the petitioner. Presumably, the work would have been completed by the petitioner as there is no subsequent correspondence. Clearly, the defence raised is not bona fide. 8. Today in the course of submissions that were made by the learned counsel for the respondent, she did not deny that no work has been done by the petitioner. Her plea was that some work had been done by the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
