TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2013) is due from the company to the petitioner, which the company failed and neglected to pay in spite of statutory notice having been served on the company. As such the petitioner contends that the company is deemed to be unable to pay its debts and is liable to be bound up. The case of the Petitioner: By a Letter of Intent dated May 24, 2011, the company had awarded to the petitioner the work of supply and installation of loose and fixed furniture for the guest rooms in the hotel being built by the petitioner at Calcutta under franchise from Taj Gateway Hotels for an initial contractual sum of Rs. 3,40,00,000/- on the terms and conditions contained in the Letter of Intent. In pursuance of the Letter of Intent the petitioner had de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ior designing (ID Works contract) which was independent of the aforesaid contract. The sum payable to the petitioner under the ID Works contract has been paid in full by the company. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the payment in respect of the ID Works contract has been sought to be adjusted by the company against sums payable under the contract for supply of furniture. Such stand of the company is not valid and legally tenable. By a letter issued by the company (page 53 of the affidavit-inopposition), the company admitted the dues of the petitioner under the contract for supply of furniture and apologized for the delay in releasing payment and assured that funds would be arranged as soon as possible. The petitioner's admitted dues have no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....position). To ensure continuous supply the company made over two post dated cheques amounting to Rs. 92,38,399/-. The petitioner discounted those cheques and started sending goods to the company. However, till as late as 16th July, 2012 the goods were not delivered, there were missing items and all supplies had not been made. Despite this position, the petitioner wrongly deposited the post dated cheques worth Rs. 92 lakhs. The company paid Rs. 50 lakhs by RTGS on 14th August, 2012. The company paid a further sum of Rs. 25 lakhs to the petitioner as recorded in the Email dated 8th October, 2012 (page 82 of the affidavit-in-opposition). There cannot be any case on dishonored cheques since after the cheques were dishonored, there h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....however, till date no such suit has been filed. It is also significant that the company's cheques amounting to Rs. 92,38,399/- were dishonored upon presentation. The company claims that after the cheques were dishonored a sum of Rs. 1,32,81,250/- was paid by it to the petitioner but it is not clear whether such payment was wholly in respect of the contract for supply of fixture and furniture or whether part of it was in respect of the ID Works contract. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the view that although the winding up petition ought not to be admitted, the company should be put on terms as its defence has raised a doubt regarding its bona fide nature in the mind of the court. In the premises, the company is directed to dep....