https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248114 The court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the respondent's defense of defective goods was deemed spurious and raised as a sham to avoid payment. Despite the respondent's allegations, the court noted the lack of timely complaints and substantive evidence supporting the defense. The petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, was admitted, and publication was directed, providing a settlement period before further action. en-us Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jun 2014 13:53:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248114 The court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the respondent's defense of defective goods was deemed spurious and raised as a sham to avoid payment. Despite the respondent's allegations, the court noted the lack of timely complaints and substantive evidence supporting the defense. The petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, was admitted, and publication was directed, providing a settlement period before further action. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248114