9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various capacities since 2009. The petitioner was a senior level managerial personnel and undertook various assignments and offered support to different companies of the group as identified and instructed by the Promoter of the group Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri. On 1.7.2010 the petitioner was retained by the respondent company as a Consultant and was rendering advisory and consultancy services for the management of the respondent company. Under the terms of engagement, remuneration of Rs. 4,75,000/-per month was to be paid to the petitioner. After deduction of T.D.S. and 3% contribution to Great Indian Dream Foundation the net consultancy fees payable to the petitioner was Rs. 4,13,250/-. It is pleaded that from September 2012 onwards the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d pleas claiming that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 100,00,000/- to the respondent is being made. 3. Learned senior counsel for the respondent has reiterated that the petitioner stopped working in August 2012 and there is not an iota of evidence to show that the petitioner continued to work thereafter. He submits that all payments have been duly made to the petitioner which were liable to be paid. 4. It is no doubt true that in the reply dated 20.6.2014 that was sent to the legal notice the plea that has been taken by the respondent appears to be quite make belief. It is claimed that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 100,00,000/- by way of damages and losses resulting from the breach of contract and violation of the terms and cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Drive Systems Sdn.Bhd., (2010) (4) CompLJ 481 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:- "17. The question that arises for consideration is that when there is a substantial dispute as to liability, can a creditor prefer an application for winding-up for discharge of that liability? In such a situation, is there not a duty on the Company Court to examine whether the company has a genuine dispute to the claimed debt? A dispute would be substantial and genuine if it is bona fide and not spurious, speculative, illusory or misconceived. The Company Court, at that stage, is not expected to hold a full trial of the matter. It must decide whether the grounds appear to be substantial. The grounds of dispute, of course, must not consist of some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
