2010 (10) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M-02 vide invoice dated 21-4-2008 for Rs. 38,23,230. Subsequently, a debit note for Rs. 66,660 was issued towards short charge of the Central Sales Tax. 2. The respondent company had paid Rs. 7,89,890 as advance. It is accepted that the respondent company paid a further Rs. 7,50,000 from time to time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the quotation and it is submitted that the respondent company had agreed to make payment in three instalments of Rs. 1,00,000 each at the end of the 30th, 60th and 90th day after installation of machines on the site and pay eight instalments of Rs. 3,00,000 each at the end of the 4th to 11th month from the date of installation of machines and last instalment of Rs. 4,00,000 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Octahedron held on 16-12-2009, I explained why this machine is a matter of dispute and also explained the details of our meeting with you held on 10-12-2009. Following points I discussed with you and which you have confirmed also. 1.The supplied SP-75 sintering machine against your quotation dated 16-3-2008 and our purchase order dated 17-3-2008 is not giving 75 square cm area. 2.Higher graphite cost per sintering with your SP-75 machine in comparison to the sintering machine available in India. 3.Use of inert gas in SP-75 does not reduce the cost of graphite compared with open air sintering. 4.You have supplied five number second-hand aluminium alloy clamping frame with SP-75 and the clamping frame got bent at the time o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the machinery after reducing the sale value by 60 per cent. The petitioner has not placed on record any letter/correspondence to controvert or deny the said meeting and offer. Notice under section 434(1)(a) of the Act was issued after this e-mail dated 16-12-2009 was written/communicated. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cheque dated 20-11-2009 for Rs. 4,00,000 given by the respondent company had bounced and the respondent company thereafter had issued a demand draft in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the demand draft was encashed and this shows that the respondent company is liable to pay the balance sale consideration. He relies upon the averments made in the correspondence written by the respondent ....