TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lary. The petitioner was also offered by the respondent's performance bonus of Rs. 20 lakhs and retention of Rs. 10 lakhs and also a joining bonus of Rs. 30 lakhs in two installments. As per the petitioner, the first installment of Rs. 15 lakhs was paid, however, the second installment of Rs. 15 lakhs was not paid. The petitioner accepted the offer and joined the services of the respondent company on 19.10.2009. As per the petitioner, the petitioner rendered services to the respondent company to the full satisfaction of the management. The petitioner contends that the respondent company suffered a loss of Rs. 89.48 lakhs in the month of November 2009. However, with the efforts of the petitioner in July 2010 the company increased its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding the said amount of Rs. 15,69,977/- which notice was not complied with and accordingly the present petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by filing form 26-AS by the respondent company there is an acknowledgement that the respondent company is liable to pay the said amount of Rs. 15,69,977/- to the petitioner. 6. The respondents have opposed the present petition and have filed their reply. The stand taken by the respondent in the reply is that there is no clear liability either admitted by the respondent or an amount admittedly payable by the respondents. 7. Respondents have contended that the winding up proceedings cannot be utilized or used for the purposes of recovery of money and it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner. 11. As per the respondents in the civil suit for recovery filed by the petitioner a counter claim of Rs. 33,52,671/- has been filed by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had forged, fudged and fabricated the figures for gaining incentives. It is, in these circumstances, the respondent has contended that there are bona fide disputes involving disputed questions of fact that are required to be adjudicated before a civil court. The respondent further contends that since a civil suit has already been filed by the petitioner in which the counter claim has been filed by the respondent company, the veracity of the claim of the petitioner is under a cloud and the same can be adjudicated upon after a trial. 12. Learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the petitioner had fudged, fabricated the figures for the purposes of availing incentives is a defence the defence which would be tested at trial. The respondent company has raised a defence that on account of manipulation and over billing the respondent company had suffered losses. The petitioner has disputed this position and has submitted that the petitioner was not responsible for any over billing or manipulation of figures, but this raises disputed questions of fact that would require intricate examination of the facts and evidence on the part of the parties which cannot be done in proceedings for winding up. The respondent company has contended that the company suffered bad debts of over Rs. 4 crores and could not collect amounts....