Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2012 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 1018 - HC - Companies LawWinding up - Invoking Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Held that:- The payment on the basis of concept of back to back basis, if accepted, then, it is only after that receipt of the payment by the Respondent/company from HAL, the Company is liable to make the payment, after receipt of the certified bills from the Petitioner or subject to the documentation as required. The interpretation of words “subject to material cost and reconciliation” itself is a matter which cannot be read in isolation without reading the other provisions of the contract. Therefore, in all, if there is serious question of even interpretation of the contract between the parties and unless that is adjudicated, not inclined to accept the case of the Petitioner to grant the prayers so made in the Petition, specifically when there is nothing on record to show that the Respondent/company, pursuance to this agreement/contract, has received the payment and they are deliberately avoiding to make the payment inspite of the undertaking and the bond so given. The Petitioner failed to satisfy that the Respondent company deliberately and intentionally neglecting to pay the agreed and due amount. As the amount so claimed, as the same itself cannot be the basis for granting relief so prayed at this stage of the proceeding. Let the amount be received by the company and be payable after settling the account in accordance with the terms and conditions.
|