TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for non-payment as we find from page 87 of the paper book. Be that as it may, for the outstanding of Rs. 8,22,729.34/- the respondent issued a notice of demand that the appellant company replied denying their obligation to pay. The learned advocate would contend, the goods were of sub-standard and inferior quality and the statement of account as on December 31, 2009 showing a balance sum of Rs. 8,22,729.34/- was sent on the understanding, as would appear from page 20-23 of the paper book, the respondent would replace the inferior quality goods by "standard quality". The respondent was not satisfied with the reply. They filed a winding up petition that the appellant contested by filing affidavit-in-opposition. In the affidavit-inoppositi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on merits. Ms. Bhutoria would contend, assuming the correspondence annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition are in dispute, the e-mails are not in dispute, that would have an echo of what had been stated in the correspondence annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition. To support her contention, Ms. Bhutoria has relied upon two unreported decisions of this Court; one of the Division Bench in the case of Duncan International (India) Ltd. Vs. A.I. Champdani Industries Ltd. dated July 2, 2008 and the other of the Single Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Deora and Baljit Securities Ltd. dated June 26, 2012. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, could not seriously dispute the existence of the e-mails. He would rather contend, the claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling Shutters & Engineering Works. His Lordship lastly observed, "the company cannot, at the postadvertisement stage, disturb or unsettle the finality of a finding as to the indisputable nature of a debt rendered at the admission stage of a creditor's winding up petition". We have considered the rival contentions. The contemporaneous correspondence annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition are in dispute. Such dispute could not be effectively dealt with by the company in their subsequent pleadings. The learned advocate while giving reply to the statutory notice of admission did not make a mention of the e-mails. Even if we accept the authenticity of the e-mails, it would not specifically raise any constructive defence that could resist succes....