TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their reply dated 11-7-1994. It was the case of the company that as per their record the value of goods supplied by the Petitioner to the company was as per the claim made by the Petitioner. Towards part payment the company had paid Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs respectively. There were two other payments in an amount of Rs. 23,20,141 and Rs. 23,99,487 which had to be adjusted on account of finished goods received from Sekhar Sagar. There was an arrangement between the Petitioner s, the company and Sekhar Sagar, an Associate of the Petitioner. The arrangement between the parties was that the amounts due and payable by the company would be adjusted against supply to be made by the Petitioner of finished products by Sekhar Sagar Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner on their behalf. The next letter is dated 13-8-1992. This is a letter from Mr. P. Shantilal of Sekhar Sagar. Petitioner has sought to give one interpretation in this letter while respondent the other. The subject of the letter reads as under : "Our Books of Account are still incomplete as we have sent money directly to you and got goods from Vato SMPL and it needs your confirmation. Kindly confirm the balance and please write us a letter to transfer the amount to the A/c of SSSS for SMPL s S-S dues." According to the Petitioners this shows that the contention of the company that there was an arrangement, cannot be believed as the letter shows the money was being directly sent to the Petitioner. On the other hand cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there is a further adjustment to the tune of Rs. 23,20,141 and Rs. 23,99,487. On the other hand in so far as the principal is concerned, pursuant to the order of the Madras High Court the Petitioner has been secured in a further sum of Rs. 75 lakhs. Considering the above in so far as the principal amount is concerned, there has been either payment or security by the company in favour of the Petitioner. Once the Petitioner is secured for the admitted amount, the company has made out a bona fide defence in so far as the winding up petition is concerned. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. v. Shree Arcee Steels (P.) Ltd. (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
