9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit in village Harkrishanpura, District Sangrur. The respondent-company approached the petitioner for purchase of acrylic yarn on credit basis in April, 2007. The deal was struck and supply of material commenced from 20.4.2007. The petitioner supplied material worth Rs. 81,98,014.45. As the respondentcompany raised certain issues regarding quality of material, a sum of Rs. 6,22,073/- was credited on account of material returned and a credit note of Rs. 5,00,000/- was given on account of some quality defect. Payment of Rs. 61,83,218/- was made by the respondent-company. The balance of Rs. 8,92,723/- was there as on 28.7.2008. Last payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the respondent in the account was on 8.5.2008. As despite repeated requests, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the respondent-company is in business and running into profits, but there is nothing on record produced in support thereof. The dispute is not bonafide. It was never raised by the respondent-company by any letter, as nothing has been produced on record. The debt being undisputed and the respondentcompany having failed to discharge the same, the petition deserves to be admitted. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no document produced on record by the petitionercompany showing that liability was ever admitted by the respondentcompany. It is the admitted case of the petitioner-company that material supplied was defective, part of which was returned back for which credit note was issued and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of quality defect. The same was partial. 8. There is no document referred to by learned counsel for the respondent-company written by it to the petitioner-company regarding defect in quality. In response to the statutory notice issued by the petitionercompany, the stand taken by the respondent-company in reply was that raw material worth Rs. 25,00,000/- supplied by the petitioner-company to the respondent-company was lying with it in poor condition and could not be used in production. Against promised compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-, credit note of only Rs. 5,00,000/- was given. As against a claim of Rs. 8,92,723/- claimed by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 11,07,297/- is due from the petitionercompany to the respondent-company on acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -company is to recover a sum of Rs. 53,648/- from the petitioner-company, whereas in reply to the notice, the claim was to the tune of Rs. 11,07,297/-. It is further relevant to add here that in reply to the petition, the story that settlement between the parties had taken place in May, 2008 regarding rebate on the invoice value is merely an after thought just to defeat the petition, as no such plea was taken when reply to the statutory notice was given in September, 2008. 10. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I do not find that the defence raised by the respondent-company is 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
