2019 (5) TMI 921

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 15.09.2012 various tax invoices were raised by the Petitioner Company against the aforesaid purchase orders, for an amount aggregating to a sum of Rs. 1,11,83,132/-. The respondent company on behalf of its joint venture partially liquidated the dues of the aforesaid sum; leaving an outstanding balance of Rs. 21,76,399/- to be payable to the petitioner. Several communications have taken place between the parties. Reliance is placed on an e-mail dated 11.11.2012 sent by the respondent company, whereby the respondent company promised to release the payment. Notice was issued to the respondent on 26.05.2014. Despite receipt of the same, the payment was not released. Hence, the present winding up petition. 3. The respondent in their detailed r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve returned the goods back to the petitioner. It cannot continue to retain the goods without making the full the payment thereof. In the present case, one cannot help but notice that substantial payments have already been made by the respondent to the petitioner. What is left, is a small amount as compared to the original purchase orders. That apart, the communication dated 11.11.2012 clearly shows that the respondent had accepted its liability to pay to the petitioner. 8. I may also note that there was no response to the legal notice dated 26.05.2014 sent by the petitioner. 9. In my opinion, in light of the above, the respondent remains liable to pay to the petitioner, the said sum of Rs. 21,76,399/-. The debt remains due and payable by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment of the Supreme Court in the case of IBA Health (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Info-Drive Systems Sdn.Bhd., (2010) (4) CompLJ 481 (SC). The Supreme Court held as follows:- "17. The question that arises for consideration is that when there is a substantial dispute as to liability, can a creditor prefer an application for winding-up for discharge of that liability? In such a situation, is there not a duty on the Company Court to examine whether the company has a genuine dispute to the claimed debt? A dispute would be substantial and genuine if it is bona fide and not spurious, speculative, illusory or misconceived. The Company Court, at that stage, is not expected to hold a full trial of the matter. It must decide whether the grounds appear to be su....