TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that any amount is due and payable to the petitioner and alleges that all payments have been made to the petitioner except for the material which was found to be defective. 2. The controversy to be considered in the present case is whether the defence raised by the respondent is bona fide or a sham defence. 3. The learned counsel has contended that the goods in question were supplied by the petitioner to the respondent during the period 07.12.2010 to14.06.2011. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the invoices raised by the petitioner for the said goods supplied by the petitioner to the respondent. It is further pointed out that the respondent also issued C-forms for the supplies made by the petitioner. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the respondent. It is alleged that the said debit note was issued on account of defective material in various consignments. A statement is also enclosed with the said debit note which indicates the amounts in respect of the rejected material which is to be deducted various bills. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has also raised a dispute regarding receipt of the statutory notice sent by the petitioner under Section 434 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956 and has contended that the said notice was not received by the respondent. The address, as indicated on the postal receipt issued by the Postal Department, is contended to be inaccurate. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. 8. There is no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is also no evidence to indicate that the said debit note or any communication as to defective material was ever issued by the respondent to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, there was no written communication issued to the petitioner in respect of defective goods but oral communications are stated to have been made. The reply filed by the respondent also does not indicate that any written communications had been sent to the petitioner. 10. It is thus obvious that the contention that is now raised that the goods supplied by the petitioner were defective has been raised for the first time after the petition has been filed and is, apparently, a sham defence which is liable to be rejected at the thresh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MCC on 07.03.2013 and the matter was directed to be listed on 24.05.2013. However, this Court also directed that in the event the mediation was unsuccessful, the respondent should file its reply at least 10 days prior to the next date of hearing. The Mediation was unsuccessful and the matter was again taken up by this Court on 24.05.2013. Although, this Court while referring the matter to mediation had directed the respondent to file its reply at least 10 days prior to the date, the same was not on record when the matter was taken up by the court on 24.05.2013. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to enable the respondent to ensure that the said reply is placed on record. Despite sufficient time the respondent did not take any steps to pla....