https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199325 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner in a dispute over outstanding hiring charges for a vibratory hammer. Despite the company's claim of settlement at a lower amount, the court found the company's defense unsubstantiated and granted an opportunity to establish its defense in a regular action by providing a cash security deposit. The company was given the option to deposit Rs. 4.50 lakh within a specified timeframe, with instructions on handling the deposit. Failure to provide the security would result in the admission of the petition for the specified amount. No costs were awarded at this stage. en-us Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:25:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199325 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner in a dispute over outstanding hiring charges for a vibratory hammer. Despite the company's claim of settlement at a lower amount, the court found the company's defense unsubstantiated and granted an opportunity to establish its defense in a regular action by providing a cash security deposit. The company was given the option to deposit Rs. 4.50 lakh within a specified timeframe, with instructions on handling the deposit. Failure to provide the security would result in the admission of the petition for the specified amount. No costs were awarded at this stage. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199325