Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2014 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 54 - HC - Companies LawWinding up of company - Inability to pay debts - Goods supplied but payment not made - respondent alleges that goods supplied by the petitioner were defective, hazardous and substandard and the petitioner is not entitled to any payment in respect thereof - Held that:- defense raised is clearly unsustainable and has been raised at a later date only to avoid the payments due to the petitioner. Indisputably, the orders for the goods had been placed by the respondent on the petitioner. The goods had, thereafter, been dispatched and also cleared by the respondent. There is no possible explanation as to what compelled the respondent to place the order for the goods and thereafter, accept the same by clearing the goods from customs and accepting the delivery of the same. Having accepted the delivery of the goods it is not open for the respondent to contend that the goods had been thrust upon the respondent against its will. This is clearly not a defense which is sincere or bonafide. The fact that the respondent had requested for deliveries to be deferred was only for the reason that the respondent wanted to test the products in the market. The fact that the respondent was not successful in reselling the goods was attributed by the respondent to high prices and local competition. These defenses are certainly not available for a purchaser to avoid payments of the goods purchased by him. The petitioner is certainly not responsible for the inability of the respondent to resell the goods or any difficulty faced by the respondent in its business. The fact that respondent has not initiated any action for recovery of the amount claimed in the said notice also indicates that the respondent was not serious in respect of the claims made in the said notice - Decided in favour of appellant.
|