9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iated the same for profit. Bills were raised for supply of such tea, and the case of the petitioner is that a sum of Rs. 12,48,239.42 remained outstanding, as BTCL upon receipt of such bills did not pay up the entire amount specified in the bill but made part payment only. 2. The petitioner demanded the sum due, as also sales tax declaration forms, by writing letters, copies of which have been made annexures E and F to the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner, through their learned advocates issued a notice on January 28, 2004 under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, calling upon BTCL to pay Rs. 12,48,239.42 along with the interest which was calculated to be Rs. 52,853 uptil December 31, 2003. Demand was also made for further interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough a process of amicable settlement. Accordingly, it was contended that the price of tea was to be determined through such process, and the price of tea which formed the basis of BTCL's claim was not the appropriate price. On this count, BTCL has prayed for dismissal of the petition. In support of his submissions that in the event bona fide dispute is raised against a claim, proceeding for winding up would not lie, the following authorities have been relied upon by learned counsel for BTCL : (a) Mediqup Systems (P.) Ltd. v. Proxima Medical System GmbH [2005] 124 Comp Cas 473 / 59 SCL 255 (SC); and (b) Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries (P.) Ltd. [1972] 42 Comp Cas 125 (SC). 4. In the present case, though I do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he company contended that no price had been agreed upon and the sum demanded by the creditor was unreasonable (see London and Paris Banking Corporation, In re [1874] L. R. 19 Eq. 444). Again, a petition for winding up by a creditor who claimed payment of an agreed sum for work done for the company when the company contended that the work had not been done properly was not allowed (see Brighton Club and Norfolk Hotel Co. Ltd., In re [1865] 35 Beav. 204)." (p. 131) The same principle has been reiterated in the case of Mediqup Systems (P.) Ltd. (supra) : "This court in catena of decisions held that an order under section 433(e) of the Companies Act is discretionary. There must be a debt due and the company must be unable to pay the same. A d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
