9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hines were deployed at the iron ore mine of the respondent in the year 1983-84 on hire basis and the hire charges were paid, but belatedly to the petitioner by the respondent. While so, both the parties entered into a written agreement on 31.1.2005 for regulating their business transaction, as per which, the respondent has to clear in full the amount covered by the bills presented by the petitioner and in the event of any default, he has to pay interest at 18%p.a to the petitioner on all delayed payment. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent is liable to pay ₹ 10,51,00,028/- together with interest charges on belated payment for the years 2005-2006, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 and last payment of ₹ 5,00,000/- was made on 6.5.2009 and thereafter, the respondent failed and neglected to make any payment, inspite of repeated request and demand including legal notice made by the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent company have though invested their amounts on purchase of properties at Chennai, Coimbatore, Udumalpet and Singapore and on purchase of valuable cars, evaded to make payment to several other creditors and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vamsi Krishna S/o.C.Sathyanarayana, aged about 37 years as on November 2010 and he was only 10 years during 1983-84 and the minor claiming to have deployed the machines in the year 1984-85 and got dissatisfied with the delayed payment would go to show that this company petition has been indulged in clear speculation at the instance of C.Sathyanarayana, who is the father of the partners of the petitioner company and who in collusion with Rajagopal filed various other proceedings against the respondent company. It is contended on the side of the respondent that the partners of the petitioner company are none other than the wife and sons of the said C.Satyanarayana, who has set up his kith and kin and has filed the present company petition as a counter blast to the claim made by the respondent company. 4.On maintainability, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per clause 14 of the agreement, dispute if any arising between the parties would only be resolved through arbitration and the Courts at Bellary alone have been conferred exclusive jurisdiction and that the claims raised herein by the petitioner are all the disputed questions of facts and the same can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.As far as the respondent company is concerned, though they admitted that the machines were deployed by the petitioner company for carrying out the mining operation in the iron ore mine at Karnataka, they do not admit any direct transaction between the two. It is the specific case of the respondent that they entered into contractual agreement with one C.Satyanarayana, whose family members are the partners of the petitioner company. As seen from Form No.2D relating to the Assessment Year 2006-07 filed by the petitioner, copy of which is enclosed at page 193 in the typed set filed by the respondent, C.Satyanarayana was also holding 20% in the petitioner company Sri Krishna Constructions. 9.Apart from that, the Mineral Winning-cum-Sale Agreement dated 3.9.2003 entered into between the respondent and C.Satyanarayana for quarrying the minerals of iron ore and red oxide and for running the Pulverising Mill and sale of minerals would read as if C.Satyanarayana was introduced to the respondent company through one common friend by name A.Rajagopal, who later on acted as agent of the respondent company and the respondent company and C.Satyanarayana after negotiations and dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny. C.Satyanarayana in the proceedings initiated by him admitted that he was at one point of time forced to vacate the premises along with machines deployed by him and the materials and the civil suit was also filed seeking the same relief. The denial of any liability of the respondent company to make any payment to the petitioner company has to be hence actually appreciated in the light of the so called alleged agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent companies and the Mineral Winning cum Sale agreement and the partnership deed, which are denied, executed between the respondent company and C.Satyanarayana who is the father of the petitioner company and one of the partners of the petitioner company at one point of time. It is the specific case of the respondent that the present petition is filed by the petitioner without any locus standi and jurisdiction, only to sort out the dispute between the respondent and C.Satyanarayana. The locus standi of the petitioner is denied on the ground that there was no direct dealings between the petitioner and respondent companies for deployment of machines and by denying the genuineness and validity of the agreement dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
