2015 (10) TMI 1019

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... principal that remains payable by the company to the petitioner in respect of the bills raised by the petitioner. The statutory notice was issued on July 16, 2012. In response to such notice, the company asserted on August 6, 2012, inter alia, that the petitioner had failed and neglected to satisfy the terms and conditions of the contract. However, the company's reply did not specifically make out that the company had paid the salaries of the customer support personnel who had been engaged by the petitioner to man the kiosks. The stand in the affidavit-in-opposition is that the company was engaged by a contractor appointed by the WBSEDCL to supply and maintain certain kiosks. The company has relied on the work awarded to the company ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be adjusted against the bills raised by the petitioner on the company. In addition to the work order issued by the company to the petitioner, the copy bills raised by the petitioner on the company and other particulars in such regard, there is a copy of an e-mail communication of March 9, 2011 which appears at page 75 of the petition as Annexure-E thereto. The material part of such short message reads as follows:- "We have released Rs. 1.5 lakh of your payment inspite of not receiving relevant documents on good faith and commitment that the outstanding salaries will be paid of CSP's. We expect you to do that latest by today. "Secondly, we will be clearing the outstanding bills by 31st March provided you pay the salaries and carry o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... account of its commercial insolvency or by reason of a bona fide dispute, the extent of the adjudication is limited. Once it is noticed that a triable issue has been raised by the company, in the sense that if the defence asserted if established would demolish the claim, an opportunity has to be afforded to the company to carry the defence to a protracted trial. In view of the substantial defence of the company, it cannot be said that it has failed or neglected to pay the amount demanded by the petitioner without justifiable cause. However, in view of the company's stand that a sum of Rs. 12,999/- is due and owing to the petitioner, such payment should be made within a fortnight from date. CP No. 225 of 2014 is admitted for the principa....