TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be difficult for the Court to come to a right conclusion one way or the other. Such is the case here. The learned Judge found the Company being dishonest having taken dishonest plea to resist the winding up proceeding. Yet he could not give any relief to the appellant creditor as the appellant-creditor was also not clear on his version. He has now approached us with the present appeal. 2. Facts would depict, the appellant claimed to have been entrusted with the job of aluminium fittings in the company's project at Pailan Park. If we go by the statutory notice of demand we would find that he supplied goods installed in various buildings belonging to the company. The company duly received and acknowledged without raising any objection.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to have been signed by the company. The copies of the bills would also show that the company received those on February 27, 2008. Yet they denied the relationship. 4. Company filed affidavit taking a complete different stand. In the affidavit they admitted the relationship however, avoided payment on the ground of settlement of claim. According to them, between the period of September 2002 to 2005 various verbal orders were placed. The company used to make part payments that position continued till 2005. The company also admitted to have paid rupees sixty four lacs eighty seven thousand and five hundred as per their books. The company claimed, in and around February 2008, the appellant for the first time raised bills. The company scrut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatutory notice was issued on December 11, 2009 that would also indicate the self-same figure as if no further sum was ever received thereafter. 6. The learned Judge was perplexed. His Lordship very rightly declined to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant. 7. Mr. Vijoy Nand Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended before us that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the conduct of the company. He referred to the series of the orders passed earlier by another learned Judge wherein the company was at the receiving end. On a combined reading of those orders we find that the so-called full and final settlement receipt purportedly, issued by the appellant was called in question. His Lordship directed the ori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal. He further contended, once the appellant could not satisfy the Court that there was a definite sum due and payable by the company to the appellant the winding up petition could not be held to be maintainable. Since the winding up petition was not maintainable it would deserve only the order of dismissal and nothing short of it. Question of securing their claim that too, an unsecured one could not arise. To support his contentions he referred two Apex Court decisions in the case of Mediqup Systems (P) Ltd. v. Proxima Medical System GMBH [2005] 59 SCL 255 and in the case of IBA Health (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Info-Drive Systems Sdn. Bhd. [2010] 104 SCL 367 (SC). 11. The concept of bona fide dispute is being explained by the Courts in umpteen....