9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishonoured for non-payment as we find from page 87 of the paper book. 2. Be that as it may, for the outstanding of Rs. 8,22,729.34 the respondent issued a notice of demand that the appellant-company replied denying their obligation to pay. The learned advocate would contend, the goods were of sub-standard and inferior quality and the statement of account as on December 31, 2009, showing a balance sum of Rs. 8,22,729.34 was sent on the understanding, as would appear from pages 20-23 of the paper book, the respondent would replace the inferior quality goods by "standard quality". The respondent was not satisfied with the reply. They filed a winding up petition that the appellant contested by filing affidavit-in-opposition. In the affidavit-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivision Bench did. The company is thus entitled to pray for relegation of the dispute for a regular trial on merits. 5. Ms. Bhutoria would contend, assuming the correspondence annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition are in dispute, the e-mails are not in dispute, that would have an echo of what had been stated in the correspondence annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition. To support her contention, Ms. Bhutoria has relied upon two unreported decisions of this court ; one of the Division Bench in the case of Duncan International (India) Ltd. v. A.I. Champdani Industries Ltd., dated July 2, 2008 and the other of the single Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Deora v. Baljit Securities Ltd. [2013] 192/118 SCL 144 (Cal.) (Mag.). 6. Learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... another decision of the same Division Bench in the case of Dhariwal Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Bengal Rolling Shutters and Engineering Works [CA No. 208 of 2013, dated 10-2-2014]. His Lordship lastly observed, "the company cannot, at the post-advertisement stage, disturb or unsettle the finality of a finding as to the indisputable nature of a debt rendered at the admission stage of a creditor's winding up petition". 8. We have considered the rival contentions. The contemporaneous correspondence annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition are in dispute. Such dispute could not be effectively dealt with by the company in their subsequent pleadings. The learned advocate while giving reply to the statutory notice of admission did not make a mention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
12. The Registrar, original side is directed to hand over the amount lying with him to the respondent along with the interest accrued, if any, in the meantime. The learned judge directed payment of interest at 12 per cent. that we, however, feel, little on the higher side compared to the present lending rate. We reduce it to 8 per cent. per annum on and from the date of the statutory notice of demand till the date of making of the deposit with the Registrar, original side. The company is granted liberty to pay the interest amount within a period of two weeks from date.
13. There would be stay of operation of this judgment and order for a period of two months from date. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
