2011 (6) TMI 605

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gard to such supply are mentioned in paragraph 6 of the petition. The company had two tea estates. One was Radharani Tea Estate and the other Krishna Kali Tea Estate. In the above paragraph of the petition 34 invoices are mentioned. They relate to supply of coal to Radharani Tea and Estate. In the latter part of the same paragraph, 8 invoices, relating to supply of coal to Krishna Kali Tea Estate are mentioned. According to the petitioning creditor the total price payable to him on account of supply of coal to Radharani Tea Estate is Rs. 9,73,042.69. For such supply to Krishna Kali Tea Estate it is Rs. 2,19,217.05. 3. On June 10, 2010, a statutory notice was sent by the petitioning creditor to the company under section 434(a) of the Compan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....no authority whatsoever to sign it and that he had left the service of the company when such signature was obtained from him by the petitioning creditor. 7. Hence, the claim of the petitioning creditor is barred by limitation because the two documents made on February 7, 2005 and May 6, 2006, would not result in extension of time up to November 12, 2010, when this winding up application was filed, to make the claim. 8. Secondly, he shows me the statement of accounts at page 100 of the petition prepared by the company saying that final payment had been made against Bill No. 209/07-08 dated October 29, 2007. The payment said to be made was Rs. 45,583. Now, the invoice relating to this claim was shown as unpaid in Sl. No. 30 of the invoices ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, is denied. It is said that the person had no authority to sign the document. He was not in the service of the company when he signed this document. The document was procured from this person unauthorisedly. 12. No one will fail to notice that this document of August 23, 2008, is very similar to the earlier documents in all respects. The amount is nearly similar. It is not very much above Rs. 9,45,991.74. Nothing has been shown to me to suggest that any steps were taken against the signatory of this document or any other steps were taken to avoid it, before filing of the affidavit-in-opposition in this application. Therefore, I do not think that this dispute is at all a bona fide dispute. Therefore, this point is rejected. I come to this....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... extend the time for those claims. 15. For similar reasons the claim arising out of invoices relating to Krishna Kali Tea Estate at page 5 of the petition being part of paragraph 6 of the petition is also barred by limitation. The invoices are as follows : SKK/C/99-00/107A dated 21-02-2000     SKK/C/99-00/108A dated 21-02-2000     SKK/C/99-00/109A dated 22-02-2000     SKK/C/99-00/110A dated 22-02-2000     SKK/C/99-00/117A dated 23-02-2000 SKK/99-99/241 2,19,217.05 SKK/C/99-00/112A dated 23-02-2000     SKK/C/99-00/113A dated 24-02-2000     SKK/C/99-00/114A dated 24-02-2000     16. Furthermore, I accept the submission of Mr. Basak that the claim fo....