TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the respondent purchased Cathode Ray, Tubes (picture tubes for TV sets) from the petitioner. Against the supplies made by the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,22,45,996.27 was due and payable by the respondent as per the reconciled balance as on 17-3-2000. The respondent gave a balance confirmation vide confir- mation note dated 17-3-2000 and the said confirmation dated 17-3-2000 is placed with the documents filed by the petitioner. Therefore, in terms of the balance confirmation note given by the respondent debt to the aforesaid extent is admitted by the respondent. 3. After the respondent gave the confirmation note dated 17-3-2000, the petitioner supplied further material from time to time for the total invoice value of Rs. 84,91,600. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 433 of the Companies Act was sent to the respondent on 30-10-2001. The said notice was received back from the post office with the remarks "addressee left". Another copy of the notice was dispatched to the respondent through registered A.D. post on 6‑11‑2001. Same also received back unserved with similar remarks. With the aforesaid statement and allegations, the present petition was filed in this Court. The respondent filed a reply to the company petition raising various defences to the aforesaid claims of the petitioner. One of the grounds that is raised is that the statutory notice under section 433 is not served on the respondent in terms of the provisions of sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act and, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be so done in view of the fact that the said balance confirmation is duly signed and stamped by the respondent. The registered office of the respondent company was situated at B-3/31, Azad Apartments, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi - 110 016. The registered notices were sent by the petitioner to the aforesaid address on 30-10-2001 and on 6-11-2001 as indicated from the records placed on record. The case of the respondent is, however, that the same is not the registered office of the respondent company as the respondent shifted its office to 57, Kalu Sarai, Hauz Khas, New Delhi with effect from 11-10-2001. The said fact of change of the address of the registered office of the respondent was, however, brought to the notice and filed with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m No. 18 with the Registrar of Companies. There is no doubt that the respondent company fully complied with the legal requirements having submitted Form No. 18 within 30 days as prescribed by section 146(2) of the Act as permissible period for intimation from the date of the change of the address of the registered office of the registered company. However, it is also proved that the petitioner could not have known about the change of the address as the address of the respondent even after the change continued to be at Aurobindo Marg in the records maintained by the Registrar when the aforesaid two statutory notices were issued by the petitioner. The intimation about change of address by the respondent company was filed with the Registrar of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted as the same is duly signed and stamped by the respondent. Therefore, the said balance confirmation is a clear admission of the liability of the respondent. The respondent also cannot dispute the fact that the cheques issued by the respondent to discharge its part liability were dishonoured for non-availability of the funds. 9. In view of the aforesaid position, the only question that falls my consideration is whether the aforesaid admissions in respect of the liability of the respondent to repay the debt becomes disputed only because the respondent has filed a claim petition before the MRTP Commission and that a summary suit is pending for consideration. A complaint was filed by CETMA of which the petitioner and the respondent are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to allege in the present petition that there is a bona fide dispute raised by the respondent in the present case. Even assuming that a case of bona fide dispute is raised by the respondent before the MRTP Commission, the total claim of the respondent against the petitioner in the said proceeding as spelt out from the prayer clause of the petition filed before the MRTP is only Rs. 30 lakhs whereas the admitted liability of the respondent is to the tune of Rs. 1.24 crores. The dispute that is sought to be raised before the MRTP Commission by the respondent does not appear to be bona fide as the same was an afterthought and is initiated by the respondent only after the petitioner has taken resort to the provisions of sections 433, 434 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
