AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upplied the agreed quantity of Natural Gypsum in accordance with various bills of lading through sea transport. The shipments were duly received by the respondent. In addition, the petitioner claims to have incurred crane charges for Gearless vessel: MV RODON on behalf of the respondent company for USD 55,425.23 against which a debit note was raised on 21.04.2013. The copies of invoice dated 09.05.2013; the Bills of lading as also the debit note dated 21.04.2013 are annexed with the petition. Hence, a total amount of USD 8,00,325.23 was due and payable by the respondent to petitioner. Though towards discharge of its liability the Respondent had made some part payments but still an amount of USD 2,43,925.43 is due and outstanding against it.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r at different rates thus reducing the profit margin of respondent. The petitioner and M/s Dhofar then started doing business with ACC and various other parties of the respondent. The respondent vide its email dated 15.10.2013 protested the breach of the business arrangement and also about a loss of Rs. 3.60 Crore caused to it, and demanded reimbursement vide email dated 24.03.2015. It is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner company has since been taken over by a new management, - not aware of its earlier arrangements is simply feigning ignorance over the claims of the respondent. The defence is the petitioner is rather liable to compensate the respondent for a sum of Rs. 3.60 crore in view of the investments made by the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from Oman and the debit note qua the hiring of crane for loading of Gypsum in the quantity of 71.96 MT to vessel MV RODON for USD 55,425.23 is filed. 8. The correspondence between the parties makes an interesting reading. Email dated 21.06.2013 at 01.33PM sent by Mr.Akhil Singh of the respondent company reads as under:- "Dear All, As stated and hereby we are committing that we will provide you the swift for Balance Payment of MY Stelios B Maximum by Tuesday hence we are trying to make the things possible by Monday itself. We request you to kindly bear with us till the said time. best regards, Akhil Singh" Email dated 25.06.2013 at 12.04PM sent by Mr.Rohit Khurana of respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10.17AM reads as under:- lower 54 "Dear Jahangir, Full Balance payment has been processed for Stelios B Our team will give you bank acceptance copy as will try to give you swift as well by or before tomon-ow EOD, hereby we request you to kindly send LIA documents as we need to shift material from port. regards. Akhil" Email dated 02.07.2013 at 18.06 HRS from Mr.Rohit Khuarana of respondent company reads as under:- "Dear Mr Alam, Kindly find the swift copy for remittance of USD 386,261/- against invoice no. 0089 of M V L1A. Due to some banking formalities our banker were unable to remit the M V Stelios B payment. Meanwhile we request you to send the M V Lia documents. Regards ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, coordination & reply in this matter. Best regards, Hossam Mustafa Executive Officer - Marketing" In response to above, the respondent had sent the following email dated 10.10.2013 at 16.08 read as under:- "Dear All, We will be processing the stelios B pay asap. Regards, Akhil" 9. The petitioner alleges that despite the respondent having promised to make the payment of outstanding dues umpteen times no payment was made. A statutory winding up notice was thus given on 25.02.2015 to the respondent company requiring it to clear the amount due within 21 days, served upon the respondent on 03.03.2015. The respondent did not respond. 10. The emails above do show the respondent never raised any objec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss with it. The respondent then blocked the balance payment. Despite the petitioner being shown, in its sundry creditors list till the year ending on 2014, the respondent suddenly showed the petitioner as a sundry debtor for the alleged losses it suffered on account of the conduct of the petitioner is nothing but a plot to avoid due payments to the petitioner which it neglected to pay despite promises made. The respondent failed to prove that its debt is a disputed debt. Its neglect to pay the balance amount without any cogent or sufficient ground rather reveal its inability to pay, hence there is no reason as to why the company petition be not admitted against the respondent. 12. In view of the above, this petition is admitted. 13. C....