TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (2) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as per particulars given in the five bills (exhibit A collectively to the petition). The company made part payment aggregating to Rs. 9,500 and, according to the petitioners, it failed and neglected to pay the balance of Rs. 58,262.30. In these circumstances, the petitioners, by their advocate's letter, dated 27th September, 1975, gave statutory notice under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, calling upon the company to pay the said balance within three weeks. In its reply dated 4th October, 1975, the company pointed out that by their letter, dated 29th August, 1973, they had given complete details of the dispute with a request that the petitioners should make the arrangement for a meeting, so that the dispute about the bills....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oners agreed to give delivery to the company, yet the delivery was not effected and the printing work was stopped. The company's clients were Tudors and their agents were Vision Advertising. One Mr. Prabhakar, a representative of the petitioners, put a proposal to Vision Advertising, the agents for Tudors, that they should pay the petitioners' bill directly, so that they may get considerable rebate and would also give copies of the bills. As the company undertakes the work on some margin, naturally there is some difference between the company's quotations to their clients and the petitioners' quotations to the company and, therefore, if the petitioners bills are given directly to the clients or if the arrangement between the company and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, viz., Rs. 27,010.76. Out of that amount, Rs. 9,500 were paid and deducting that amount, a sum of Rs. 17,510.76 is due and payable by the company to the petitioners, and the company is ready and willing to pay the said amount by monthly instalments of Rs. 400". The petitioners in their affidavit-in-rejoinder denied that a meeting was held on 11th April, 1973, where it was decided that the bills would be settled at 50 per cent. rebate, and stated that the letter, dated 13th April, 1973, would falsify these allegations. The petitioners also denied the other allegations relating to the alleged settlement on 11th April, 1973, as set out in the reply. As this stage, it is convenient to refer to the letter, dated 13th April, 1973 (exhibit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and his client, the matter was kept back. It was again before me on 26th February, 1976, when again it was kept back on two occasions for the convenience of the company. At today's hearing, Mr. Powle sought to tender an affidavit in surrejoinder affirmed on 24th February, 1976. He stated that he desired to rely upon this affidavit in order to deal with the allegation made in the affidavit in rejoinder that the orders were executed in time. After the application had been refused and the matter adjourned for orders, an affidavit in surrejoinder was sought to be prepared and tendered on the ground that it related to a denial about the orders having been executed in time. In the first place, when the application for adjournment had been refused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de dispute or not will necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Again, it is well-settled that a detailed inquiry at the preliminary stage of admission should be avoided. All the same, the court has to consider the dispute raised by the company. This can be achieved by assessment and appreciation of the affidavit evidence before the court at the stage of the admission. It is for the limited purpose of arriving at a conclusion whether a bona fide, serious and substantial dispute arises or not, that the court examines the matter. The court looks out for a prima facie case. If a petitioner makes out a prima facie case, then the court would exercise its discretion. Mr. Powle, the learned advocate for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....talments were to have a gap of about four weeks. On the other hand, the company had given a cheque for Rs. 5,000 on 30th April, 1973, which was dishonoured some time in the last week of May, 1973. Thereafter, Rs. 5,000 were paid on 24th September, 1973, Rs. 1,000 on 13th February, 1974, Rs. 1,000 on 2nd March, 1974, Rs. 500 on 29th August, 1974, Rs. 500 on 3rd October, 1974, Rs. 500 on 23rd October, 1974, followed by two payments of Rs. 500 each on 5th December, 1974, and 10th January, 1975. The plea of the company that monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 400 were agreed, in the circumstances, appears not to be true. Furthermore, according to the company, the settlement was made on 11th April, 1973, when it was agreed that Rs. 9,500 were....