TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st thereon at the rate of 1.5 per cent per month compounded with monthly rests. 2. In June, 1998, pursuant to the diverse transactions entered into between the petitioner and the company a sum of over Rs. 5 crores was found due and payable by the company to the petitioner. 3. On 22-9-1998, an agreement was arrived at between the parties whereby the company acknowledged and admitted its liability and agreed to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,68,92,000. The terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties were reduced to writing. A Memorandum of Understanding dated 22-9-1998 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'MOU') was arrived at and executed by and between the parties. Under the said MOU and more particularly in clause (3) ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company to make payment of its dues and held several meetings to ensure payment by the company of the dues of the petitioner. 5. Pursuant to the meetings, between the petitioner and the company, a Supplemental Agreement dated 6-5-1999, has been entered into between the petitioner and the company. Under the Supplemental Agreement it has been recorded by and between the parties, its admitted liability to pay a sum of Rs. 5,68,92,000 to the petitioner on a time bound schedule along with interest thereof. It has also been inter alia, recorded that the entire amount would be payable on or before 31-3-1999. Under the Supplemental Agreement, it has also been agreed that the 1st dishonoured cheque under the said MOU dated 22-9-1998, would be retur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court. 8. On 24-8-2000 in respect of the notices issued by the petitioners' Advocates, the company by its Advocates' letter bearing Reference No. SCM/BDC/SM/1408/2000 dated, inter alia, denied the allegations, contentions and statements contained in the letter. 9. On 22-8-2000, the petitioner's Advocate addressed letters to the company as well as to the Chairman of the company, Mr. V.K. Agarwal, inter alia, narrating the entire sequence of events and also calling upon the company as well as its directors to make payment of the dues of the petitioner. The notice of the director was addressed to him on the basis of the said director guaranteed due repayments of all outstandings of the company in his personal capacity as contained in the Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore have no option, but to invoke the provisions of sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent-company by affidavit dated 25-8-2001 resisted the admission on various grounds but without any supporting material. 11. There is further rejoinder filed by the petitioners re-iterating the stand already taken in the main petition. The response, even if raised, in view of the above facts and circumstances in no way has affected the basic case of the petitioners in view of the various statements recorded even in writing in reference to the admission of the amount due and payable. The respondents in various correspondences have acknowledged their liability. Some of them are as under : (a)Exhibit 'B' is letter dated 19-1-20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious defences which, after going through the same, in my view, is unsustainable. Even after adjustment, there remained no doubt in view of the clear admission made that the amount was due and payable more than Rs. 3 crores. Admittedly, there was no proceeding raised or initiated by the respondent-company at any earlier point of time except by raising such pleas of adjustment and/or of outstanding first time after a demand made by the petitioner of the dues in question. Admittedly, there is no reply to the last statutory notice dated 22-8-2000. 14. The claim, therefore, on the date of filing of the petition as recorded in Exhibit 'C' as on 30-11-2000 remained to be Rs. 5,09,15,672 which is inclusive of principal sum due and outstanding as o....