TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008. The defence raised by the respondent-company is not reasonable as the debt cannot be said to be disputed, which has not been paid despite statutory notice and even pendency of the present petition in this court for a period of about six years. Hence, the petition deserves to be admitted - Adjourned to February 16, 2016. - Company Petition No. 106 of 2009 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 28-9-2015 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal For the Petitioner : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Alok Jain and Mr. Kirti Kumar, Advocates. Rajesh Bindal J. 1. The present petition has been filed seeking winding of the respondent-company on the ground of its inabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent-company from the petitioner. The submission is that though in reply to the statutory notice, the stand was that defective material was lying in the factory of the respondent, however, in reply to the petition, it was stated that alleged defective material was used and defective products were not worth sale in market, which resulted into losses or the products sold were received back. It was further claimed that the products manufactured being of lower quality had to be disposed of at a less price. 3. It was further submitted that though in reply to the notice, it was claimed that a sum of ₹ 11,07,297/- is recoverable by the respondentcompany from the petitioner, however, in reply, the accounts were prepared showing that a su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... winding up can be ordered. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 6. The case set up by the petitioner-company is that from April, 2007 onwards, it had supplied material worth ₹ 81,98,014/- to the respondent-company. As the respondent-company raised certain issues regarding material, a sum of ₹ 6,22,073/- was credited back on account of material returned and a credit note of ₹ 5,00,000/- was given on account of some quality defect. 7. As far as supply of material and payments noticed above, the facts are not in dispute. The stand taken by the respondent-company is that there is no document showing that liability is admitted. In fact, the goods being defective, the respondent-company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the market, which were returned back. No communication has been referred to, which was addressed by the respondent-company to the petitioner-company, pointing out such defects. It was further sought to be claimed that after giving credit note of ₹ 5,00,000/- in May, 2008, the petitioner-company agreed to give rebate to the extent of 50% on the total invoices on account of the defective material. The calculations were made in the following terms: Inv. No. 162 ₹ 8,55,370.65 Inv. No. 177 ₹ 8,66,788.29 Inv. No. 216 ₹ 9,07,891.19 Inv. No. 300 ₹ 8,84,726.17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich has not been paid despite statutory notice and even pendency of the present petition in this court for a period of about six years. Hence, the petition deserves to be admitted. Ordered accordingly. 11. Considering the stand taken by the respondent-company that it is still carrying on its business and providing employment to number of persons, besides generating revenue for the State, opportunity is granted to the respondent-company to settle the accounts with the petitioner-company by 31.12.2015. In case of failure, the citation be published thereafter. 12. The factum of admission of the petition be published in the newspapers, namely, 'The Indian Express (English)' and 'Jagbani (Punjabi)', both Punjab edition and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
