TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (11) TMI 567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the necessary facts giving rise to the present petition. The petitioner company, which is incorporated under the provisions of the Act, with its registered office at 307, Ajit Sen Bhawan, 13, Crooked Lane, Calcutta is primarily involved in the business of financing. Of course, under the objects of the company, the company also deals in the products other than merely financing. On 8-3-1995, the petitioner-company made an intercorporate deposit of Rs. 50,00,000 with the respondent-company for one month bearing interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. The amount was deposited by means of cheque No. 932775, dated 8-3-1995 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. As the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The respondent-company put in appearance and filed the reply to oppose the petition. 5. It was stated that no statutory notice under section 434, was served upon the respondent-company and the notice did not satisfy the basic ingredients of section 434. On the merits, it was stated that no interest was payable, though receipt of Rs. 50 lakhs was admitted, as stated by the petitioner of this petition. In fact, the liability of more than Rs. 7 lakhs was admitted by the respondent-company but it stated that it had supplied Black Goat Nappa to the petitioner vide invoices dated 18-8-1995. Copies of the notices have been annexed to the reply as Annexures R-1 and R-2. Annexure R-1 is the invoice for a sum of Rs. 3,15,120 while Annexure R-2 is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or receipt of the material. Creation of Annexures R-1 and R-2 in their own favour would be of no alternate to the respondent-company to show discharge of a valid and admitted due debt. It was a finance transaction where admittedly incorporate deposit was made. The petitioner-company has specifically disputed the receipt of the said material. A specific affidavit was filed in this regard stating they are dealing with the finance company. It has been specifically averred that the petitioner-company is not a trading concern and is only engaged in the business of finance and lease. They never placed any order nor did receive the goods as stated in Annexures R-1 and R-2 appended with the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-company. If the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... default and failure to pay the petitioner-company, the petitioner-company would be constrained to take appropriate legal proceedings at the risk and responsibility and costs of the respondent-company. The petition for winding up is nothing but a legal proceeding. The notice dated 17-5-1997, was received by the respondent-company. Thereafter, the petition for winding up has been presented in the Registry of this court on 29-7-1997, i.e., much after the expiry of the period of three weeks from the date of the notice and its service. 10. It is a settled principle of law that mere non-mentioning of three weeks in the notice would not prove fatal and would not invalidate the notice and cannot always result in dismissal of the winding up petiti....