TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng such part payment. The stand taken by the company in the reply to the statutory notice and in its affidavit in opposition is completely inconsistent with the company having made part payment to the petitioner. The defence sought to be raised by the company does not appear to be bona fide. It is merely an afterthought to avoid payment of the petitioner’s outstanding dues. In the premises, this company petition is admitted for a sum of ₹ 54,593.32 being the principal amount claimed by the petitioning creditor. The sum will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 19th September, 2013 being the date when the winding up petition appears to have been filed. However, the company is given an opportunity of paying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between 10th March, 2010 and 7th July, 2012. Upon the company s failure to pay the said outstanding amount the petitioner caused to be served on the company a notice dated 19th November, 2012 under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The company responded by its letter dated 26th December, 2012 contending that the entire materials supplied by the petitioner were rejected due to poor quality of the materials as well as non-suitability of the same. It was further alleged in the said reply that in spite of several telephonic intimations the petitioner failed and neglected to lift the rejected materials from the company s Orissa plant and replace the same with fresh materials and in course of time the rejected materials have been fully was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner as contended by the petitioner has not been denied by the company. In paragraph 8 of the winding up petition the petitioner has furnished the particulars of the part payments made by the company. In its affidavit in opposition the company has not denied or disputed such particulars. It is, thus, established that the company did make payment of ₹ 4,82,565.60 to the petitioner. Had the company rejected the goods supplied by the petitioner, there could have been no question of making such part payment. It is also not the case of the company that there was some other transaction between the parties and the payment of the said sum was made in connection with such other transaction. (7) The stand taken by the company in the reply to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
