Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2014 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1820 - HC - Companies LawWinding up petition - Held that:- The claim of the respondent that the material supplied by the petitioner other than the material supplied under bill No. 057 dated 08.10.2011, on account of defects therein, had caused huge loss to the respondent, the responsibility for which should be taken by the petitioner, is clearly an afterthought. The contention of the respondent that the legal notice issued by the petitioner was a counter blast to the legal notice sent by the respondent on 07.03.2012 seeking recovery of ₹ 20,00,000/- from the petitioner is not acceptable, since even according to the respondent, the notice dated 07.03.2012 could not be served on the petitioner and was returned with the noting "no such person at this address". It has been admitted so in para 8 of the counter filed by the respondent. If the notice dated 07.03.2012 was not served on the petitioner I do not see how the steps taken by the petitioner commencing with the legal notice dated 21.05.2012 can be a counter blast to the same. In the course of the arguments as requested the learned counsel for the respondent to produce the copies, if any, of other debit notes said to have been sent by the respondent to the petitioner to substantiate its claim that the material supplied under disputed bills were actually returned to the petitioner. Till the close of the hearing, the respondent who was present in Court through its authorised representative, could not produce any of the debit notes though it was asserted that the respondent did send those debit notes. Therefore, it seems to be a case where the defence put up by the respondent is not bona fide, is mere moon-shine. Except one debit note and return of the goods to the petitioner, for which credit was given by the petitioner, no other goods were returned. The other goods supplied by the petitioner were used by the respondent for manufacture of cables. There is no evidence adduced by the respondent to prove that the alleged defects in the cables manufactured by it were on account of defective materials supplied by the petitioner, particularly when admittedly the respondent was getting material also from other suppliers. It seems to me that the respondent raised the bogey of loss recoverable from the petitioner only to ward off the claim of the petitioner with regard to the balance amount outstanding in the ledger account. The defences raised by the respondent do not have any substance. Accordingly admit the winding-up petition.
|