AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 737
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. His case is that between May 8, 1998 and October 16, 2009, he performed a number of works of repairing machinery, constructing buildings and repairing the factory of the company at their Kailashpur Tea Estate. Bills were raised for Rs. 44,54,777 the company paid Rs. 24,11,619 the last payment being made on July 10, 2009. There is due and payable a sum of Rs. 20,43,158. The petitioning-creditor claims interest on the said sum of Rs. 20,43,158 at 18 per cent. per annum from July 10, 2009. 2. It is said on behalf of the petitioning-creditor by Mr. S. B. Mookherjee, the learned senior advocate that on October 6, 2008, the Income-tax Department wrote a letter to the petitioning-creditor. The subject of the letter was with regard to the tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f that balance confirmation the petitioning-creditor had issued the notice. The statement did not disclose a "current and running account". The claim was barred by limitation. The petitioning-creditor was asked to produce all supporting documents. 4. Mr. Hirak Kr. Mitra, the learned senior advocate assisted by Debdutta Sen, the learned advocate argued this application on behalf of the company. He relied on the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the company affirmed on May 3, 2010, by one Piyush Kanti Rahut. According to paragraph 3 "k" of this affidavit several bills of the petitioning-creditor had been paid, except 13 bills dated April 7, 2002, April 7, 2002, May 19, 2002, June 2, 2002, June 2, 2002, July 17, 2002, August 11, 2002....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gment of debt as on March 31, 2003 and no more. He showed me the statement of accounts annexed to the statutory notice to show that the payments made by the company, which are not disputed, shows that these payments were part payments towards the entire liability and that those part payments were made continuously till July 10, 2009. Discussion and conclusions 8. The making of the admission or acknowledgment of liability, that the sum of Rs. 22,56,571 was payable by the company to the petitioning-creditor as on March 31, 2003, is admitted. Now let me assume, considering the stand taken by the company, that this admitted sum together with the subsequent admitted bills of the petitioning-creditor was paid in excess so that a sum of Rs. 2,65....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....segregation of 13 bills roughly representing the entire claim of the petitioner and taking the plea that there was no work order for these bills will not do. No contemporaneous letter or note of rejection of the work or bills or any other document or records have been brought on record to dispute the claim. It appears as if 13 bills the value of which roughly represented the petitioning-creditor's claim were picked out and denied. Even this denial is entirely controverted by the statement of accounts discussed above. 10. It has been held in Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries (P.) Ltd. [1972] 42 Comp. Cas. 125 (SC) and followed in subsequent cases including Mediqup Systems (P.) Ltd. v. Proxima Medical System GmbH [2005]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est, to deceive the court, into believing by false projection of statement of accounts and absolutely erroneous allegations that no work was done and false bills were raised by the petitioning-creditor, that the company has a defence. Such a company cannot be said to have any commercial morality. And if a company does not have commercial morality it is liable to be wound up on just and equitable grounds in addition to the ground of its inability to pay its debts. (See Jardine Henderson Ltd. v. Howrah Mills Co. Ltd. [2010] 160 Comp. Cas. 462 (Cal.), paragraph 16). 16. Therefore, in such a situation where there is no defence but there is endeavour by the company to confuse the court or to deceive the court, the court should not only reject t....