TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 and 439 of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) inter alia seeking winding up of Eastern Clearing and Forwarding Agency Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the said company). 2) The petitioner says that two shipping containers belonging to the petitioner bearing numbers CLHU2729950 and XINU1293115 respectively and each of 20 feet in length has been utilized for carrying cargo vide bill of lading bearing no. OEL/CCU/15/08/1101 dated 25th August, 2015 by a ship from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Kolkata Port for being forwarded onward to Nepal by land to the consignee. The consignor as appears from the bill of lading (annexed to the company's affidavit-inopposition) is AL KAHF METAL TR.CO.LLC, P.O. Box-69467, Sharj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tainers till the date of filing of the winding up petition has been lying with the said company. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has claimed detention charges from 8th November, 2015 to 7th June, 2016 at the rate of 75US$ converted into INR at the rate of Rs. 68 per US$ aggregating to Rs. 21,72,600/-. The petitioner has also claimed a sum of Rs. 3,15,338/- on account of outstanding service tax on the said detention charges as well as a sum of Rs. 5300/- being the alleged unpaid amount from the previous bills. After discounting the said sum of Rs. 5300/- for the reasons as stated hereinabove it appears that the aggregate sum claimed as outstanding debt by the petitioner is Rs. 24,87,984/-. On the basis of these allegations by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impose any liability on the said company to pay the detention charges. The company also says that though it had no obligation to pay yet for a healthy business relationship they have taken all measures for recovery of the detention charges claimed by the petitioner from Aman International and/or M/s. M.A. Badani. They had also initiated criminal proceedings against both the consignee as well as M/s. M.A. Badani. 5) It appears that the company thereafter has issued two further letters through their advocate one on 28th January, 2016 and the other on 17th March, 2016. Both the letters were addressed to the consignee Aman International at Birgunj, Nepal. It appears from the said letters that the said company says that detention charges cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e period 28th October, 2015 to 7th November, 2015. By paying 60 US$ per day for a particular period and 75 US$ per day for the period between 28th October, 2015 to 7th November, 2015 against the bills raised by the petitioner it is clear that a contract by implication has came into effect between the petitioner and the said company wherein the petitioner has claimed and the said company has paid detention charges. 8) The argument advanced by the said company regarding agent of a disclosed principal - the agent being the company and the consignee being the principal by relying on the provisions of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not hold good in view of the other provisions of the said Section as also in the fact and cir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d payment by attempting to shift the liability on the consignee and M/s. M.A. Badani with whom the petitioner had no dealings. The said company has only initiated criminal proceedings against the consignee and M/s. M.A. Badani but, it has not initiated any civil proceedings to recover any money from them though it urges in its letters that the detention charges are payable to the petitioner thereby demanding money from the consignee. The only dispute the company has raised as to whether the said company will itself pay or the consignee or M/s. M.A. Badani will pay. This is an internal dispute between the said company and the consignee. The facts remain that the company had engaged the petitioner and not the consignee or M/s. M.A. Badani. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the prevailing rate as on the date of the judgment. Since the claim between 29th November, 2015 till 7th June,2016 is not barred by limitation as it is still within three years, the petitioner may file a suit within 28th November,2018. The company is given time till 25th November, 2018 to deposit the said sum for the period between 29th November, 2015 to 7th June, 2016. The petitioner is directed to forward a statement of claim for the period between 29th November, 2015 to 7th June,2016 in INR computed at the conversion rate prevailing on date of the judgment within the period of 21 days of delivery of this judgment to enable the said company to deposit the money with the Registrar Original Side of this Court within a period of 25th Novembe....