2013 (10) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff was a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling television sets and audio systems. The defendant no.1 is a proprietorship concern run by defendant no.2, having a shop cum office at Chandigarh. Vide an agreement dated 27.09.1986 (Exhibit PW1/1), the plaintiff company appointed the defendant no.1 as a Stockist on a non-exclusive basis in Chandigarh. The said agreement was subject to the jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi and was to subsist for an initial period of three years. However, the defendant no.1 continued to remain the Stockist for the plaintiff even after the expiry of the three years unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e premises of the defendants shop and to sign the Ledgers, Cash Books, Journals, stock registers, sale and purchase registers and all other relevant books of accounts relating to the business at the defendants' shop. Further, vide order dated 27.07. 2012 passed in CO. PET. 93/1992, permission was granted to the Official Liquidator to continue with the suit as the plaintiff company was ordered to be wound up on 02.09.1992. 5. I have heard the Ld. Official Liquidator and have perused the records. 6. The plaintiff has filed its affidavit by way of evidence of Sh. Sudhir Kapoor, Asstt. Official Liquidator which is at Ex PW1/A. According to the calculation done by him, the total amount as outstanding on 27.09. 2012 was Rs. 18,40,886 (Rupee....