9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present petition are that the petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm, based in the United States of America, owned by Mr. Deepak Mehta. 3. It is stated in the petition that respondent company's duly authorised representative Mr. Farhath Hussain was approached by the petitioner to arrange stage shows in United States in which Mr. Vivek Oberoi, the film star was willing to participate between 24th August, 2003 and 30th September, 2003. In support of its case the petitioner has annexed the respondent's letter dated 29th January, 2003 allegedly authorising Mr. Farhath Hussain to not only enter into contracts on behalf of the respondent company but also to accept monies in its account. In the petition, the petitioner has also relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emails exchanged between Mr. Mahesh Oberoi on behalf Mr. Suresh Oberoi, Director, of the respondent company and Mr. Kevin H. Lewis at pages 19 to 24 of the paper book. He contended that in the aforesaid e-mails, respondent company had admitted receipt of US$300,000 from the petitioner, but instead of offering full refund in cash, had offered to repay the petitioner partially in cash and the balance through services performed i.e. future shows to be performed by Mr. Vivek Oberoi. In particular, Mr. V.P. Singh relied upon the following e-mails to show the admission of debt to the tune of US$ 300,000 by the respondent-company: "From : [email protected] To : [email protected]; [email protected] Sent : Mon, 16 Apr 2007 3:34 PM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has stated, ".....Since Mr. Hussain cannot wait any longer as he is launching his shows and is signing contracts with various promoters. It will not be possible for him to add Vivek at a later stage....." 10. On merits, Mr. Govind stated that despite availability of Mr. Vivek Oberoi, stage shows as planned could not be held as Mr. Farhath Hussain did not get confirmation from other actors. He also stated that the claim made by the petitioner was barred by limitation. 11. Mr. Govind stated that the respondent was always willing to refund the advance of US$300,000 received by the respondent provided Mr. Farhath Hussain issued a duly notarised discharge/No Objection certificate. He lastly pointed out that a recovery suit between the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 118, Citibank, Mumbai, India. Please note that this letter authorizes Mr. Farhath Hussain to remit the contract amount into the above mentioned account for only the shows held by M/s. Cine Entertainment Promoters Ltd. held between 24th August to 30th September 2003. Thanking you, Yours faithfully For Yashi Multimedia Sd/- Suresh Oberoi" "Jan 29th 2003 Mr. Farhath Hussain Cine Entertainment Promoters Ltd. 31, Longwood Gardens, Ilford Essex, IG5 OEB (UK) Sub: Shows from 22nd August to 30th September 2003 Dear Sir, This is to inform that I have authorized M/s. Yashi Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. to deal on my behalf for anything & everything regarding the above mentioned shows including dates and receiving payments. Thanking you, Yours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the receipt of US$ 300,000 is admitted by the respondent, but its stand has been that it will refund the same to the petitioner provided Mr. Farhath Hussain is agreeable to the same and gives a full and final discharge to the respondent. Even the authenticity of the alleged notarized release letter placed on record by the petitioner along with its rejoinder is not admitted by the respondent. The last e-mail written by the petitioner's counsel and the respondent is reproduced herein below:- "From : Kevin H. Lewis To : [email protected] Sent : Thu, 24 May 2007 2:06 pm Subject: RE. Mahesh, thank you for your e-mail. I do not know why YMM has not sent you the notarized letter that you have requested. We have asked Mr. Hussain to do so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his behalf. We need to be careful. Pl help by getting the original notarized. Money is there and will be paid. 5 shows is sufficient if that is all what Deepak wants to do. However, we can all have a win win situation if we have more shows. Thanks." (emphasis supplied) 20. Consequently, the authenticity of the alleged/release letter needs to be proved by the petitioner. 21. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that there are issues which require to be adjudicated in the presence of Mr. Farhath Hussain. The defence set out by the respondent in the reply to the winding up proceedings cannot be said to be a moonshine or sham. The Madras High Court in B. Viswanathan v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [1992] 73 Comp. Cas. 136 has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
