9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of dyes and chemicals which were accordingly supplied against invoices; copies of the invoices and C-forms have been annexed along with the petition. Relevant would it be to state that initially a petition had been filed by the petitioner which had been allowed to be amended by a subsequent order dated 09.12.2010. This amendment application had been opposed by the respondent. The Court had recorded that the merits of the contentions raised in the amendment application will be examined at the time of arguments on the main petition. 3 The averments in the amended petition relate to transactions which had been effected in the year 2003-2006 against goods supplied; invoices for a sum of Rs.1,07,615.98 were raised; contention was that it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fically averred that the last business transaction took place between the parties on 10.05.2003; no orders were placed thereafter; the transaction of 30.7.2004 and 30.5.2006 was only on a trial basis; the contention of the respondent all along being that these two samples which were sent in the year 2004 and 2006 respectively did not lead to any business dealing between the parties as the samples were not satisfactory. 5 Learned counsel for the respondent points out that there are glaring discrepancies between Annexure-3 and Annexure 3-A which have been filed by the petitioner i.e. the statement of his ledger account filed with un-amended petition and the ledger account which has been filed along with the amended petition. These two docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account to be correct after May, 2003 there is one transaction of 30.07.2004 wherein a bill of Rs.14,004/- is raised; this was for 5 Kg of dye (as is evident from the bill); the second transaction dated 15.04.2006 which is after two years is for another meager amount of Rs.3,956/-; both these small amounts depicted in these two later transactions clearly evidence the fact that were these only samples which had been supplied to evaluate whether the said samples of the petitioner had improved over a period of time but not having done so, the said samples were rejected; thus there was no liability owed by the respondent to the petitioner. Transactions in other bills/invoices relate to 150-200 Kg quantities. 7 Legal notice issued by the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alth (I) P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Info- Drive Systems SDN. BHD. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 553 has held that "the Company Court is expected to ascertain that the company‟s refusal is supported by a reasonable cause or a bonafide dispute in which the dispute can only be adjudicated by a trial in a civil court." (See „para 31‟). 10 Present claim is clearly time barred. Under Article 14 Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act, a period of limitation for three years is prescribed for the price of goods sold and delivered where no fixed period of credit is agreed upon; limitation has to commence from the date of delivery of the goods. Article 1 would be applicable only for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account in which case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
