AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any") on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. According to the petitioner, in terms of the various purchase orders issued by the company between April, 2013 and July, 2015, it supplied coal to the company. Against the total quantity of coal supplied the petitioner raised various invoices upon the company which were received by the latter. The company made payment of certain invoices and sent an account confirmation statement (hereinafter referred to as "the said account confirmation") to the petitioner admitting its outstanding principal dues to the petitioner for Rs. 1,74,65,867/-. However, in spite of requests of the petitioner the company did not pay said amount. By a notice dated March 15, 2016 issued under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest from the petitioner due to production loss suffered for 2 days because of delayed supply of coal. In its affidavit-in-reply the petitioner denied all the allegations made by the company in its affidavit-in-opposition and reiterated its claim in the petition. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this application is founded on the said account confirmation furnished by the company for the period April 01, 2013 to July 27, 2015 acknowledging its outstanding dues to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,74,65,867/-. According to the petitioner, the defence sought to be made up by the company on the allegation that its officer who issued the said account confirmation was not conversant with all the details is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been able to demonstrate any error in the said account confirmation issued by itself. According to the petitioner, the company has not disclosed any contemporaneous document alleging that it suffered any operational loss due to any act or omission of the petitioner. With regard to the case made out by the company for not replying to the statutory notice dated March 15, 2016 on the ground of en masse resignation of its employees, the petitioner submitted that such allegation is also a bald allegation and the company has not disclosed any document to substantiate such allegation. It was strongly contended that the allegations made by the company for the first time in its affidavit-in-opposition lack prima facie proof and such allegations are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s raised by the latter for the period April 1, 2013 to July 27, 2015. The company could not deny the issuance of the said account confirmation to the petitioner. However, in its affidavit-in-opposition the company for the first time sought to disown its obligation to pay to the petitioner the outstanding amount mentioned in the said account confirmation alleging that the officer who issued the document was not conversant with all the details. It is to be noted that there is conspicuous absence of an affidavit by the said officer of the company stating his ignorance of the facts relating to the transaction between the parties herein. The company on its own volition issued the said account confirmation and subsequently it did not issue any co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity in the case made out by the company that the said notice was not brought to the notice of the concerned officer of the company on the ground that there was en masse resignation of its staff. It is settled law that when a company does not reply to the satutory notice issuued under section 434 of the Act of 1956, there arises a presumption that the company has admits the the claim of the petitioning creditor. If an authority for this view is looked for, the same can be found in the decision by Ruma Pal, J (as Her Ladyship then was) in the case of Associated Forest Products (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. K.T.S. (Singapore) PLC Ltd. reported in 1993(1) Cal LT (HC) 382. For the reasons as aforesaid, I find that the company has failed to make out any bo....