9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ea was not taken when the goods were delivered. The defence which is sought to be raised cannot be said to be bona fide or prima facie valid. No doubt the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the two communications to plead that they have received complaints about peeling of paint. However, these complaints are received from the alleged customers of the respondent and do not generate any confidence. In my opinion, the defence raised by the respondent cannot be said to be bonafide. Accordingly, I admit the present petition. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as the Provisional Liquidator. He is directed to take over all the assets, books of accounts and records of the respondent-company forthwi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted out that the statutory notice was sent to the respondent on 26.06.2014. In the reply sent by the respondent on 07.07.2014, there is no denial regarding the receipt of the goods. A frivolous complaint is raised that the metal sheets supplied were coated with oil which has resulted in peeling of the paint. It is pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this plea is an afterthought. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has reiterated that there is no afterthought in the defence taken by the respondent in the reply dated 07.07.2014 to the legal notice. He relies upon an e-mail dated 14.10.2013 received by the respondent complaining about the fading of colour of the vehicles. Reliance is placed upon a communication recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the goods were delivered. The defence which is sought to be raised cannot be said to be bona fide or prima facie valid. 6. No doubt the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the two communications to plead that they have received complaints about peeling of paint. However, these complaints are received from the alleged customers of the respondent and do not generate any confidence. In my opinion, the defence raised by the respondent cannot be said to be bonafide. 7. Reference in this context may be had to the judgement of the Supreme Court in IBA Health (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Info-Drive Systems Sdn.Bhd., (2010) (4) CompLJ 481 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:- 17. The question that arises for consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... papers Statesman‟ (English) and Veer Arjun‟ (Hindi), as well as in the Delhi Gazette, at least 14 days prior to the next date of hearing. 9. Petitioner shall deposit a sum ₹ 75,000/- towards cost of the publication with the Official Liquidator within 2 weeks, subject to any further amounts that may be called for by the liquidator for this purpose, if required. The Official Liquidator shall also endeavour to prepare a complete inventory of all the assets of the respondent-company when the same are taken over; and the premises 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
