2018 (3) TMI 420

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petition was duly served upon the company and in spite of repeated opportunities being granted by this Court, the company has chosen not to file any affidavit-in-opposition to this application. Mr. Rishav Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the company submitted that since the petitioner had issued 3 separate notices under Section 434 of the Act of 1956 claiming different amounts, the company has consciously decided not to file any affidavit-in-opposition. He further submitted that according to the company, it is liable to pay Rs. 17,64,828/- to the petitioner and the company is ready to pay the said amount to the petitioner by way of suitable instalments. It was also conducted that application is not maintainable on the ground t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vice disclosed as Annuxure-'E' to the application. In spite of such admission the company has failed to pay Rs. 17,64,828.60/- to the petitioner. In the two notices dated June 06, 2016 and July 01, 2016, issued under 434 of the Act of 1956 the petitioner claimed payment of the said admitted amount of Rs. 17,64,828.60/- from the petitioner but the latter did not respond any of the said notices. By the third notice dated September 03, 2016, under Section 434 of the Act of 1956 the petitioner clarified that in fact it is entitled to receive payment of the entire balance amount of its bills for Rs. 25,31,990.75/-, but by mistake in the earlier two notices it claimed payment of Rs. 17,64,828.60/-. The company even did not respond to this letter.....