2008 (7) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fected, the respondent has not appeared. The appellant sought winding up with the short allegations that there were supply of cotton made by the petitioner's factory to the respondent-company ; that the outstanding amount on that account as on March 31, 1998, was to the tune of Rs. 10,24,252.80 ; that despite number of letters making the demand, and requests made, and in particular, a letter dated November 17, 1997, though served upon the respondent, they have not made the payment as per the demand; that further, the appellant came to know that amounts exceeding Rs. 25 lakhs were to be realised from others ; that there was a promise by the respondent to make the payment, but not done so ; that the respondent-company came forward to execu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....adduced by the learned single judge for rejecting the request of the petitioner for winding up the respondent-company, were erroneous. According to him, the appellant has clearly proved the authenticity of the letter dated December 3, 1997, sent by the joint managing director of the respondent-company, and apart from that, a demand has also been made by a letter, and it was actually served upon them, and number of reminders were also sent. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent was switching over its office from place to place, and hence, it could not be served all along; that there was a telegraphic message issued ; that in the instant case, there was no triable issue at all; that as far as the liability is concerned, by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e tune of Rs. 10,24,252.80, and that was the liability Now, according to the respondent, the cotton which was supplied, was of substandard quality, and they were not liable to pay to that extent. Hence, there was an issue to be tried and decided in that regard. Secondly, there was a demand made, according to the appellant, by way of a letter dated November 17, 1997, as required by law. It remains to be stated that as rightly pointed out by the learned single judge, there was no proper material available to indicate the service of the said notice, in the absence of which, it cannot be stated that there was a demand. Thirdly, learned counsel for the appellant made much reliance on the letter dated December 3, 1997, as if it was an admis....