https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110018 The court found the respondent liable for payment of goods supplied by the petitioner, rejecting the defense of acting as a technical agent for another entity. Despite admissions of liability by a related company, the court held the respondent directly responsible due to the established contractual relationship. The respondent's attempts to avoid liability through inspection issues and purported defenses were deemed insincere. The court ordered the respondent to deposit specified amounts within six weeks, failing which the winding-up petitions would proceed. en-us Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110018 The court found the respondent liable for payment of goods supplied by the petitioner, rejecting the defense of acting as a technical agent for another entity. Despite admissions of liability by a related company, the court held the respondent directly responsible due to the established contractual relationship. The respondent's attempts to avoid liability through inspection issues and purported defenses were deemed insincere. The court ordered the respondent to deposit specified amounts within six weeks, failing which the winding-up petitions would proceed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110018