1996 (11) TMI 390

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....garjuna Babu for the Respondent. JUDGMENT S. Dasaradharama Reddy, J. - This is a petition filed for winding up of the respondent-company on the ground that it is unable to pay the debt of Rs. 1,27,339.79. According to the petitioner, it supplied white duplex board to the respondent-company by lorry on October 10, 1992, and the lorry freight was paid by the respondent-company. The petitioner-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stocks and that the petitioner has not sent samples along with the material. However, on the assurance of the representative of the petitioner, namely, Mr. Gangooli, the respondent cleared the freight bill for Rs. 7,500. As the goods were defective, it is not liable to pay any amount. The petitioner examined one Mr. Arora, P.W.-1 and got marked fifteen documents. The respondent got examined D. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tter dated nil (exhibit A-15), which is reply to exhibit A-8, received by the petitioner on April 12, 1993. The questions whether the respondent has placed a written or oral order and whether Mr. Gangooli is the representative of the petitioner or respondent are not relevant. The stand of the respondent is that the goods are defective and not up to the specification. D. Nagarjuna Babu, learned cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng clarification regarding the payment of Rs. 3,000. Further no evidence was let in by the respondent-company therein to substantiate its solvency or readiness to meet the claim. On these facts, this court held that there is no bona fide dispute regarding the debt. In the instant case, the respondent-company denied its liability even prior to the statutory notice. Exhibit B-2, certificate given by....