2008 (2) TMI 634

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted some supplies to the respondent from the year 2001 onwards. In respect of such supplies, the petitioner raised various invoices on the respondent amounting to a sum of Rs. 33,50,386. The petitioner also raised interest debit note No. 9037 dated July 18, 2001, for Rs. 4,99,014. Against the said amount, the respondent effected only part payment of Rs. 4,54,542.81 and still a sum of Rs. 31,51,399 remain due and payable by the respondent. By a scheme of amalgamation Tata SSL Ltd., merged with Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., which was sanctioned by the Bombay High Court on April 3, 2003, in C P. No. 100 of 2003. As per the scheme, all the assets and the liabilities of Tata SSL Ltd., vested with Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., the petitioner here....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tself is barred by limitation. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the company petition. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner reiterating their earlier stand and praying for winding up of the company. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents and judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by letter dated March 21, 2002, the respondent admitted their liability and therefore they cannot deny their liability before the company court. Learned counsel further submitted that the second notice was sent to the current address of the company by registered post, therefore it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., this letter dated March 21, 2002, is not an unambiguous and categorical admission of a specified amount due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner. Similarly, the balance confirmation report dated July 19, 2002, cannot also be said to be an unconditional admission of the debts by the respondent. According to the respondent, they have rejected some materials sup plied by the petitioner for which proper credit was not given by the petitioner. They have also filed certain letters in the additional typed set of papers to show that some materials were rejected and they asked for credit notes towards the value of the same. In such circumstances, the above company petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and if at all t....