9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the respondent has not chosen to either secure the earlier order recalled wherein an observation was made by this Court that, there is no merit in the defence of the respondent. That apart, after the publication was made, no person has approached this Court opposing the petition for winding up. In any event, the respondent had not raised the dispute with regard to the payment that is to be made or with regard to the quality of the goods supply at an earlier instance, but was raised for the first time in the instant petition. Taking note of these aspects, it is clear that the dispute sought to be raised by the respondent is not bonafide. The respondent infact is unable to pay its debts. Hence, the respondent company is liable to be wound u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 50,000/- was thereafter paid. After deducting the amount paid from the total the amount that was due to be paid by the respondent was in sum of Rs. 1,98,571/- as on 06.09.2005. The petitioner therefore got issued a legal notice calling upon the respondent to pay the said amount. The details of the calculation of the amount as demanded is adverted to in the petition as on the date of filing of the petition. The petitioner contends that a sum of Rs.2,17,339/- was due. 3. The respondents though did not reply to the statutory notice and raise any objections, it has sought to raise a contention before this Court that, the supply made were defective and it is not as per the order placed, as such the payment of amount sought was resisted. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein an observation was made by this Court that, there is no merit in the defence of the respondent. That apart, after the publication was made, no person has approached this Court opposing the petition for winding up. In the above noted circumstances, where claim has been made by the petitioner and evidence has been tendered which has remained unchallenged, the claim as put forth by the petitioner would have to be accepted. In any event, the respondent had not raised the dispute with regard to the payment that is to be made or with regard to the quality of the goods supply at an earlier instance, but was raised for the first time in the instant petition. Taking note of these aspects, it is clear that the dispute sought to be raised by the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
