TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt per month as on November 6, 2000. It has also prayed for a direction to pay compensation at the same rate from November 7, 2000, till payment. From the averments in the petition it appears that both the parties had entered into a hire-purchase agreement on October 23, 1997, whereunder certain equipments were given on hire basis to the respondent-company which was required to discharge the liability in 36 monthly instalments of Rs. 28,150 commencing from February 23, 1998. The petitioners have averred that there was default on the part of the respondent-company in making payment of the very first instalment and, therefore, the petitioners became entitled to get compensation at the rate of 31 per cent per month from the due date. It is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, 1997, which was not given credit. The respondent-company had asserted that it was financially solvent and that it had sufficient assets to meet the liabilities. The petitioner-company had sent a rejoinder denying various contentions of the respondent-company. Finally it appears that both the parties have landed before me. 2. The respondent-company on receipt of the notice of the petition has filed an affidavit in reply challenging all the contentions of the petitioners by raising several disputes in respect of the claim made by the petitioners. The petitioner-company has filed its rejoinder on August 8, 2001. 3. I have heard both the learned advocates for their respective parties. I have also carefully gone through the proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equipment from the premises of the company which did not belong to the petitioners. Shri Bharati has also made a submission that his clients had not returned the said equipment as the company had not made payment to the petitioners. 4. Shri Kedia, the learned advocate for the respondent-company has made a serious grievance about the conduct of the petitioner-company in respect of taking away of not only the hire-purchase equipment, but also other machinery which did not belong to the petitioner-company with the help of muscle power hired by the petitioner. On account of this the company has suffered a huge loss as its business had come to stand still. The value of the said machinery which did not form part of the hire-purchase agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed bona fide dispute in their letters. The company has specifically pointed out in its letter dated June 10, 2000, that it had issued a cheque of Rs. 1,99,038 on September 25, 1997, towards the margin money for the hire-purchase agreement but the same was not accounted for. It is significant to note that there was no mention or reply to the said allegation made by the company in the notice sent on behalf of the petitioners on August 10, 2000, wherein the whole claim is made on the company. The respondent-company has further reiterated the said contention in its reply dated September 4, 2000, that the aforesaid amount was not given on credit. In the said reply to the notice there are several specific disputes raised by the company in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the respondent-company. In my opinion the petitioners have miserably failed to prove that the respondent-company was not a solvent company in reply to pay its debts. It is a running concern and profit-making concern. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the debt is not at all an admitted, ascertained and liquidated amount. The counter allegation of the respondent-company that it has paid an amount of Rs. 2,85,000 would require evidence. The receipt of the amount of Rs. 1,99,038 is however not disputed and has also not been credited in the account of the respondent-company. The petitioners would have to prove that the said amount was received from the company on behalf of its sister concern in a separate transaction. Further, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... editor for recovery of a debt which is bona fide disputed. The respondents have disputed the said claim even prior to the filing of the petition in reply to the statutory notice. The petitioners have resorted to arbitration remedy which according to me, is the legitimate remedy available to them to resolve the differences and disputes which admittedly have arisen between the parties. There is no doubt in my mind that the petitioners want to be coercive and oppressive against the respondent-company with ulterior motives to pressurise the company to surrender to the dictates of the petitioners. The petitioners have also unlawfully taken away the property of the respondent-company worth Rs. 8 lakhs and have kept the same with it. Such a cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
