TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 16th Main, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore - 560 070, with an authorised share capital of Rs. 1,00,00,000 divided into 1,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. The issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the company is said to be Rs. 30,00,000 equity shares as on 31st March, 2003. 3. The petitioner claims to be a leading manufacturer of various chemical products and a division of Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., formerly known as Bayer Rubber Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., an indenting agent in India for canvassing the sale of chemicals and chemical products of the petitioner. Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., is said to have imported lubricant additives from the petitioner company and in particular, under invoice Nos. 91186651 and 91186653 both dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he chemicals and its value but does not disclose any acknowledgement by the respondent company for having received the materials. Although the petitioner claims that M/s. Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., is an Indenting Agent in India, the said indenting agent s name is not forthcoming either from Exhibit A1 or Exhibit A2. The alleged purchase orders of the respondent company are not placed before the court. The petitioner having elaborately stated facts as regards the alleged transaction between itself and the respondent, the alleged compromise, discussion, the amounts due and payable by the respondent company to the petitioner, are not supported by documents. The mere statements in the statuary notice as regards the purchase order, invoice and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent company is unable to meet its outstandings. 7. Sri T.S. Amarkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, places reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Divya Export Enterprises v. Production Private Ltd. ILR 1990 KR 1610. It is not possible to see how this ruling furthers the contention of the petitioner. In the said judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the discretion exercisable under the Act is like any other judicial discretion and that a mere assertion of a debt payable is not sufficient to attract the discretion of this Court. The principle laid down therein is that a prima facie case must be made out by the petitioner by which the respondent company should shoulder the onus of di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
