Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 931 - HC - Companies LawWinding up petition - whether the petitioner-Company, and the respondent-Company have initially entered into a Marketing Budget, which was duly approved by the Chief Financial Officer, and the respondent-Company or not? - Held that:- Admittedly, on 30.3.2016, the petitioner-Company had sent a statutory notice to the respondent-Company. In Para-5 of the said notice, the petitioner-Company h ad claimed that the respondent-Company owe them an amount of ₹ 1,63,06,154/- as on 8th of May 2014. The said para has been denied specifically by the respondent-Company in its reply dated 10th of May 2016. The respondent-Company, has denied that the payment of ₹ 70 lakhs was part payment of the alleged amount of ₹ 2,33,06,154/-. It further claimed that the payment of ₹ 70 lakhs was, in fact, full and final payment of the amount owed by the respondent-Company to the petitioner-Company. Therefore, it further denied the fact that on 8th of May 2014, an amount of ₹ 1,63,,06,154/- was owed by the respondent-Company to the petitioner-Company. Since the denial is an absolute one, since the denial has been made in reply to the statutory notice issued by the petitioner-Company, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that denial is an after-thought. Considering the fact that respondent-Company has denied that it owes any debt to the petitioner-Comp any, considering the disputed questions of fact which are involved in the present case, naturally the present winding up petition is not maintainable before this Court. In the present case, since evidence, both oral and documentary, needs to be led in order to decide the disputed questions of fact mentioned herein above, clearly the winding up petition is not the proper remedy
|