https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460084 The court recalled the dismissal order of CP No.263 of 2009, restoring the case due to justified absence. It upheld the petitioner's claim for outstanding payments, as the company did not dispute receiving goods or invoices. The company's defense regarding goods' size was rejected, as it attempted to alter contract terms post-delivery. The petitioner was awarded interest at 12% per annum from the statutory notice date, September 25, 2008. If the company fails to pay within a week, the petition will be advertised, potentially leading to insolvency proceedings. en-us Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jan 2025 15:57:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460084 The court recalled the dismissal order of CP No.263 of 2009, restoring the case due to justified absence. It upheld the petitioner's claim for outstanding payments, as the company did not dispute receiving goods or invoices. The company's defense regarding goods' size was rejected, as it attempted to alter contract terms post-delivery. The petitioner was awarded interest at 12% per annum from the statutory notice date, September 25, 2008. If the company fails to pay within a week, the petition will be advertised, potentially leading to insolvency proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460084