TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file an affidavit-in-reply. Thereafter, the matter was heard on the 3rd of December, 1979, and after hearing the parties it appeared to me that this was a matter which can be adjusted mutually and with that end in view to which the respective counsel for the parties agreed, the matter was adjourned from time to time till I was informed that it could not be settled amicably between the parties. Therefore, the matter was heard at length. Mr. S. B. Mukherjee, appearing with Mr. S. Pal, for the petitioning-creditor, submitted that the petitioning-creditor, who is a contractor, was appointed by the company which is also a company carrying on the business of constructing multi-storeyed buildings at various parts of Calcutta. The petition was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not bona fide and having regard to the clear admission and checking of the measurement sheets by the representative of the company it must be held that the winding-up petition is not an abuse of the process of the court and the disputes raised by the company to the debt due to the petitioning-creditor are not bona fide and there is no substance or merit in the said defence either in law or in fact. Therefore, the winding-up petition should be admitted. Mr. Ajit Sinha (led by Mr. P. C. Sen), appearing for the company, submitted that this is a matter where the winding-up proceeding is not the proper remedy. He strongly relied on the principles laid down in Ofu Lynx Ltd. v. Simon Carves India Ltd. [1971] 41 Comp. Cas. 174 (Cal.) at p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of the court but actual quantification is a question of accounts between the parties and adjustment for which I adjourned the matter to enable the parties to act in a commercial manner and maintain the good relation between the parties which existed before, but I failed ultimately. Therefore, the proper order under this situation is as follows : The winding-up petition is admitted. The company is directed to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 60,000 to the satisfaction of the Registrar, Original Side, by the 31st of March, 1980. On such security being furnished the petitioning-creditor would be relegated to a suit which should be filed by 30th of April, 1980. If such security is furnished and the proposed suit is filed by the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
