TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Foreign company wins debt dispute against Indian company. Statutory notice upheld. Bill re-endorsement not required.</h1> <h3>Clicquot Asia Ltd. Versus Red Robin International Ltd.</h3> Clicquot Asia Ltd. Versus Red Robin International Ltd. - [2005] 61 SCL 240 (BOM.) Issues Involved:1. Non-payment of debt by the respondent-company.2. Validity of the statutory notice under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.3. Necessity of re-endorsement of the bill of exchange for maintaining the petition.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Non-payment of debt by the respondent-company:The petitioner, a foreign company engaged in manufacturing wines and champagne, supplied goods to the respondent, an Indian company, under an exclusive distributorship agreement dated 6-10-2001. The petitioner claimed an outstanding amount of 220,273 Euros from the respondent for the goods supplied. Despite the goods being delivered and invoices raised, the respondent failed to make the payment. The petitioner issued a statutory notice under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, but received no response from the respondent. The court noted that there was no dispute regarding the delivery of goods and the amount due, thus establishing the respondent's liability to pay.2. Validity of the statutory notice under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956:The respondent contended that the statutory notice dated 10-3-2003 was invalid as it was issued before the assignment deed dated 1-4-2003, transferring the assets and liabilities from Clicquot Hong Kong Limited to Clicquot Asia Limited. The court referred to the Rajasthan High Court's judgment in Dawn Communications (P) Ltd. v. Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd., which held that a notice given by an assignor before assignment remains valid. The court agreed with this view, stating that as long as the petitioner was a creditor at the time of filing the petition, the notice was valid. The notice was issued on behalf of both Clicquot Hong Kong Ltd. and Clicquot Asia Limited, making the petition maintainable.3. Necessity of re-endorsement of the bill of exchange for maintaining the petition:The respondent argued that the petitioner could not maintain the petition without re-endorsement of the bill of exchange dated 2-1-2002, which was endorsed to a bank. The court examined various judgments, including the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bank of India v. Laffans India Exports (P.) Ltd., which held that re-endorsement is not necessary if the bill of exchange is dishonored and the holder is in possession of the bill. The court concluded that the petitioner, being the original creditor and holder of the dishonored bill, could maintain the petition based on the original cause of action and the bill of exchange.Conclusion:The court found the respondent's defenses unsubstantial and ordered the respondent to deposit 220,273 Euros within eight weeks. If the respondent failed to deposit the amount, the petition would be admitted and advertised. If the amount was deposited, the petitioner was to file a suit within four weeks. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 