9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/-, towards price of the fabric supplied by the appellant to the respondent Company and which liability was admitted by the respondent Company in its letter dated 26th March, 1998 to the appellant. 3. The respondent Company in response to the statutory notice of winding up has also in the reply to the winding up petition, set up a case of adjustment; it is stated that M/s RMP Fabrics, being a sister concern of the appellant herein owed monies to M/s Indian Handicrafts, a sister concern of the respondent Company. 4. It is the case of the appellant before us, as was also was before the learned Company Judge that the case of M/s RMP Fabrics owing money to M/s Indian Handicrafts is highly improbable and unbelievable and a sham. Without preju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Food Distributors Ltd. v. London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1976] 3 ALL MR 462 at Page 467, held that doctrine of single economic entity is acceptable in law and thus the plea of the respondent Company of adjustment, in transaction between sister concern, could not be thrown out as sham and is required to be proved. 7. The learned Company Judge further found, (a) that the appellant also had already instituted a Suit for recovery of the said sum of Rs. 17,26,952/- with interest etc.; (b) the adjudication required recording of evidence; (c) defence of the respondent Company is bona fide. Accordingly, relying on IBA Health (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Info-Drive Systems SDN Bhd. [2010] 104 SCL 367/8 taxmann.com 1 (SC) the learned Company Judge dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and can even be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case, after scrutinizing the pleadings and ignoring vague, evasive and unspecific denials as well as inconsistent pleas. Similarly another Division Bench in Col. (Retd.) Dalip Singh Sachar v. Major General (Retd.) Prabodh Chander Puri [2007] 141 DLT 209 also held that in exercise of powers under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC, the Court can even see whether the objections raised against rendering the judgment are such which go to the root of the matter or whether these are inconsequential, impossible of succeeding. It would thus be seen that the test to be applied under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC is not very different from the test to be applied in a winding up petition. In that l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
