9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Sri P.S. Agarwal holding brief of Sri R.P. Agarwal for the respondent-company. 2. In this creditors winding up petition notices were issued on 25-2-1999. The respondent-company has filed a counter affidavit. Sri S.P. Agarwal made preliminary objection namely that the notice of demand under section 434(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, was not served upon the respondent-company and that the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be received by the respondent-company. Thereafter supplies were made vide bill Nos. 97, 183, 192 and 198 for which the petitioner-company received all the dues. The business relations continued up to 4-9-1977. 5. The demand relates to the first three supplies vide bill Nos. 79, 80 and85 for Rs. 92,757.51, Rs. 1,37,674.11 and Rs. 2,62,452.20 respectively of which the cheques given in advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory demand notice is alleged to have been sent after one year of the last supply made by the petitioner-company. This conduct, according to Sri S.P. Agarwal, is not the normal course of business. In case the supplies were not taken back, the petitioner-company would have at least made the demand for the amounts under these dishonoured cheques. 7. From the averments made in the affidavits, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
