2002 (8) TMI 775

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der the Partnership Act, 1956, and having office at Chennai-1. The respondent, Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd., was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 as a limited company. The main object of the company for which the company was established is to carry on among other business of alloy steel raw materials and other object set forth in the memorandum of association. The respondent company purchased alloy steel raw materials from the petitioner company through invoices, Invoice No. Date Amount 11E/MDS/438 17-1-1992 29,086.11 11E/MDS/528 9-3-1992 93,493.25 11E/MDS/51 12-5-1992 93,640.05     2,16,219.41 for their use in business. 3. As ordered, the materials were supplied, and the same was acknow-ledged by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upplied the materials, there is no reason why the petitioner has waited for more than 10 years to seek payment on the invoices relied upon by them. Obviously, no such supply was effected. The respondent had faced acute financial trouble in or about 1994-1996. There were several winding up petitions that were filed against the respondent company. This court even ordered the advertisement of the company petitions against the respondent. The petitioner would have at least at that point of time, come forward and made a claim before this court. No such attempt or effort had been taken by the petitioner. The respondent was taken over by a new set of promoters from Indonesia in the year 1997. The respondent company is carrying on business smoothly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is true that in spite of the statutory notice, dated 5-9-2001, the respondent-company did not send any reply. However, in the counter statement, it is stated that in the absence of details, namely, invoice and other particulars, the respondent ignored the notice. As rightly brought to my notice, the statutory notice dated 5-9-2001 does not refer to any of those details, such as invoice number, date and amount. Only in this company petition, the petitioner has referred to those details. Likewise, though in this petition, it is stated that the managing director of the respondent-company orally agreed to discharge the amount, admittedly, the same has not been stated so in the notice, dated 5-9-2001. It is also stated in the counter affidavit ....