2017 (6) TMI 656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....act dated 3rd July, 2015 was Rs. 12,30,000/- whereas that of the contract dated 3rd September, 2015 was Rs. 12,75,600/-. In addition to this a certain quantity of local chemicals were also supplied by the petitioner to the company. 3. The petitioner has relied upon a confirmation of account dated 5th October, 2015 for the period 1st April, 2015 to 30th September, 2015 being annexure-D at page 67 of the petition. It was signed by the parties. The respondent company is said to have confirmed that a sum of Rs. 58,97,200/- was due and owing by them to the petitioner in transactions for the statement period, which included the subject transactions, except one. 4. No dispute was raised by the company with regard to the delivery, quality or quan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondent company tried to legitimise this extraordinary stand taken by the company by referring to a purported enquiry made by his client into these alleged acts of misdemeanour committed by Khanna and his associates. But, according to the records disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition, there is evidence of this purported enquiry only from 18th January, 2016, six days after issuance of the statutory notice. 8. Mr. Sen tried to submit that because of these acts of omission and commission committed by Khanna and his associates, the petitioners' invoices had been held up by the company. In those facts and circumstances the respondent company was not obliged to make any payment to the petitioner. I am unable to accept this line of defence....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... substantial period of time goods were being supplied to the company, payments were being made by them but they could not discover that Khanna and his associates were buying them at a premium to cause loss to the company or were misappropriating the goods. 10. At no point of time was there any complaint made by the company that the petitioner was over charging them. 11. This court does not for a moment believe any purported enquiry started by the company after issuance of the winding up notice by the petitioner. 12. In those facts and circumstances, this court is able to hold in a summary way that the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 54,89,076/- as principal sum on account of sale and delivery of the above goods. 13. However, the foundatio....