9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut in the facts of the present case, as discussed above all the issues, including the one with regard to receipt of the said notice has to be decided after considering the evidence of the parties by the competent civil Court in a suit. As noted that on an earlier occasion by an order dated October 30, 2015 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, the present winding application was dismissed. The petitioner carried the said order dated October 30, 2014 in appeal being APO which was allowed by the Division Bench by the order dated January 5, 2015. As considered the earlier order dated October 30, 2014 as well as the order dated January 5, 2015 passed by Division Bench of this Court. However, none of the said orders records the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company was also liable to pay freight charges, all taxes and duties as applicable. The petitioner claims that in view of the failure on the part of the company to make timely payment of the dues, it was prevented from carrying out the erection work in time. It is further urged that although the petitioner substantially completed erection and commissioning of the said ACC unit at the said site but after making few part payment of its petitioner invoices, the respondent committed breach of the contract by failing and neglecting to make any further payment to the petitioner. According to petitioner, that against the total invoices raised by it amounting to ₹ 3,86,52,349/- including taxes, VAT, duties, additional work done etc. as appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... desired its liability to pay any money to the petitioner but it claimed that the petitioner is liable to pay damages/penalty charges of ₹ 5 crore as per the said agreement dated October 06, 2009 and the said notice dated February 17, 2011. The petitioner, however, did not reply to the said notice dated May 12, 2014. Even in paragraph 25 of the application, the petitioner has not specifically denied not to have completed the commissioning of the said ACC Unit within the stipulated period of 15 months. The petitioner has also not denied the allegation of the company that it had surrendered in between and that the company had to deploy its own people for the job. In this connection, it is to be noted that the electronic mails dated Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y an order dated October 30, 2015 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, the present winding application was dismissed. The petitioner carried the said order dated October 30, 2014 in appeal being APO No. 495 of 2014, which was allowed by the Division Bench by the order dated January 5, 2015. I have considered the earlier order dated October 30, 2014 as well as the order dated January 5, 2015 passed by Division Bench of this Court. However, none of the said orders records the findings, which I have arrived in the present case. For the reasons as aforesaid, although the company remain unrepresented, I do not find any merit in the present application. Accordingly, CP No. 683 of 2014 stands dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
