TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advs. JUDGMENT N. Patherya, J. 1. This is an application filed under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner's case: 2. The case of the petitioner is that for price of goods sold and delivered to the company between April, 2005, to March 31, 2006, bills were raised. The same were received by the company without any objection. Part payments were made and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame has not been denied. The bills in respect of which there has been duplication are BDR/84, BDR/87, BDR/109 and BDR/114. Therefore, the entries in respect of these bills are fictitious and cannot be included in the claim of the petitioning creditor. Bills raised by the petitioner upon the company have not been annexed to the winding up petition and therefore the petitioner has failed to produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er been pleaded that such bills were fictitious, or were not received by the company. The statutory notice was issued in August, 2007 and the same was received during the tenure of the old management. No reply has been given to such statutory notice and the pleas sought to be raised by the company after the new management took over in November, 2007, cannot be justified. The defence of the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the company. Therefore, the plea taken is unjustified. No contemporaneous document has been produced by the company disputing the said bills. It has not been disputed that the goods were not received or consumed by the company. The plea of change of management taken is intended to defer payments. The defence, therefore, of the company is not bona fide and no reason exists for recalling the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
