TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 919
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted to the Petitioner in the sum JPY 64,516,217 (Japanese Yen). It is the case of the Petitioner that these amounts have not been paid and, therefore, the present Company Petition. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the Petitioner being a proprietory concern is in the business of supplying gaming machines. It is the case of the Petitioner that in furtherance to the business transactions as agreed to between the Petitioner and the Respondent - Company, the Respondent Company placed an order on the Petitioner with respect to the purchase of certain machines as reflected in the Proforma Invoice dated 28th May, 2007. The said Proforma Invoice was thereafter amended and signed by the Petitioner on 11th Apr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, calling upon the Respondent Company to pay its dues failing which winding up proceedings would be initiated. It is not in dispute that this statutory notice has been duly served on the registered office of the Respondent - Company. Despite receipt of the statutory notice, no reply was given and neither were the requisitions contained therein complied with. It is in these circumstances, that the present Petition is filed. 5. After the Company Petition was accepted, it was served on the Respondent Company pursuant to which they have filed a detailed affidavitinreply dated 23rd March, 2015. By virtue of this reply, they have resisted the admission of this Company Petition. 6. In this factual ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany. In other words, the submission was that the so called admission was adequately explained. (c) Though, the Petitioner in the present Company Petition has made a claim only with reference to the invoices that arise under the third purchase order, in fact they were two earlier purchase orders under which machines were supplied by the Petitioner to the Respondent Company and which machines were defective and had to be reexported for repairs etc. Even, as far as the machines supplied under the invoices which form the subject matter of this Petition are concerned, a lot of these machines also were found to be defective. This alone would give rise to a bonafide defence to the Company Petition as the Respondent Company had a counterclaim i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce confirmation has been issued on the letter head of the Respondent Company. However, the Respondent Company in Paragraph No. 20 of its affidavitinreply has specifically averred that the gentleman who has issued this balance confirmation was taking care of the accounts department of the foods and beverage division of the Respondent Company. The said balance confirmation appears to have been issued by the said gentleman on a simple mathematical computation of the invoices raised versus the amounts paid. The said gentleman was not aware of the disputes raised between the Petitioner and the Respondent Company in relation to the defective machines supplied as well as the delay in supplying the said machines. What is important to note is that....