Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (7) TMI 690

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n place of the petitioner. This is how, in this petition, now M/s. Gharda Chemicals is the petitioner who was also directed to file the amended petition. The amended petition was filed to which respondent filed its reply. Therefore, reference shall be made to the amended petition. 2. In this petition, the petitioner states that it is the creditor of the respondent company to the tune of ₹ 9,95,41,358.59. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of various insecticides, pesticides and agro-Chemicals. It has been supplying this material to the respondent company as well. According to the petitioner, on or about 29th July, 1996, petitioner sold , supplied and delivered the respondent company 1200 Kgs. of 92% at the rate of ₹ 1,182.20 per kg. and 800 kg. of the said product having purity of 93% at the rate of ₹ 1,195.05 per kg. plus excise duty thereon. Invoice No. 750087 dated 29th July, 1996 for an aggregate sum of ₹ 2614920 was raised on the respondent. 60 days credit period was given during which respondent was to make the payment and there was a stipulation in the invoice that in case payment is not made within 60 days, for del .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l. However, even this commitment was not heeded to and therefore, Petitioner vide its letter dated 25th March, 1998 requested the company to clear at least ₹ 2 crores by 30.4.98 and also go give firm schedule of payment. In response, Petitioner received letter dated 15th April, 1998 from the company inter alia stating that he would make payment of ₹ 2.2 crores by the end of June, 1998. 7. However, this proved to be an empty assurance. The petitioner accordingly, sent fax message dated 4.6.98 requesting the company to inform how much amount it would be releasing on weekly basis so that backlog of more than ₹ 1.5 Crore out of ₹ 2 Crores promised to be paid by end of June, 1998 is wiped out. Another meeting was held on 12.8.98 wherein the company assured the petitioner that it would make regular payments. Thereafter, letter dated 14.8.98 was addressed by the company to the petitioner proposing to pay ₹ 20 to 30 lacs by September, 98. However, against the commitment of payment of ₹ 2.2 crores by the end of June,98, only a sum of ₹ 84.38 lacs was paid within the stipulated period and ₹ 16.6 lacs thereafter. And thereafter, etter dated 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... #8377; 8,91,96,276.00 and against that purchase respondent had made payment of ₹ 8,38,36,568.00 and the remaining amount was not paid due to the sub-standard and defective supply of Insoprotuon (Technical) supply by the petitioner during the period 1998. 9. It is also stated that under the garb of this winding up petition, the petitioner is trying to recover its disputed time barred claim. It is also averred that the petitioner also filed a suit for recovery CS(OS) No. 1713/2000 titled as M/s. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. v. M/s. Pestochem (I) Ltd. before this Hon'ble Court and the same suit is still pending and awaiting decision from this Hon'ble Court. The said suit filed by the petitioner is being hotly contested by the respondent on the similar grounds an submissions made by the petitioner in reply to the present winding up petition by the substituted petitioner M/s. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. 10. It is therefore, contended that there are serious and bonafide disputes and winding up is not the remedy available to the petitioner. Respondent has also questioned the statement of the petitioner and has sought to point out various anomalies therein which would be taken note .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... present. We hope that market conditions shall improve by the end of this week. Hence the realisations so made shall be remitted to you. 3. As discussed we both shall put all efforts to make the recoveries from the South and we are ready to furnish letters to you in the names of the parties to clear the outstandings directly in your favor on our behalf. We hope you will find the above to your satisfaction and shall be kind enough to us by extending your co-operation in recovering the overdues from south. Meanwhile however, you will appreciate that we have cleared around ₹ 130 lacs during the months of April to October, 97 out of your old dues. 13. It may be noted that in its letter dated 25.3.98, the petitioner had stated that respondent has 'promised' to clear ₹ 2 crores from the total outstanding approximately ₹ 5.41 crores before 30.4.98. Significantly, although this outstanding amount was mentioned it was on account of principal only, respondent refuted the same. Vide letter dated 14th April, 1998 it promised to make payment of ₹ 2.2 crores by the end of June, 98. However, as respondent did not stick to the promise and made some payent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the claim of the petitioner. 2. The respondent company has been making promises to clear the outstanding. It has also been giving schedule for making some specific payments. However, payments were not made as per schedule and of the amounts which it undertook to pay from time to time. It would be clear from this that even the amount payment of which was assured (admitting the same payment to be part payment), those were cleared and thus even as per the respondent same payments were due. 3. As per the respondent's contention taken in the reply now, during the period 1996-99 it had purchased material worth ₹ 8,91,96,276.00 and against this, payment of ₹ 8,38,36,568.00 is made. For balance payment it is alleged that nothing is due as the material was defective. However, in none of the correspondence, there is any whisper for alleged defective material supplied. Thus, even as per the respondent also sum of ₹ 53.60 lacs approximately would be due once its contention of defective upplies is rejected. 17. The aforesaid amount of more than ₹ 53 lacs is only towards principal balance due without taking interest component in consideration. The responden .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates