TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of an outstanding amount Rs. 16,86,548/- along with due interest. 2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent company placed an order for certain construction equipment and steel scaffoldings by way of written purchase orders dated 11.04.2012, and such goods were duly supplied by the petitioner to the respondent company at the required site on 24.04.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner raised certain bills/invoices dated 20.04.2012 and 26.04.2012 against said purchase orders for an amount of Rs. 17,67,099/- and it was agreed that in case of failure to make such payment within 25-30 days of the supply of goods, the respondent company would be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum. Despite repeated reminders, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondent company and in fact, the petitioner is liable to refund 25% of the total amount billed i.e., Rs. 14,62,995/- to the respondent company on account of such overcharging. Therefore, it is stated on behalf of the respondent company that the debt sated to be payable and claimed by the petitioner is disputed, and even if such debt is admitted, the respondent has a genuine counter claim to the amount claimed by the petitioner. In view of the same, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent company that instituting a winding up proceeding is not the appropriate means for enforcing a debt and recovery of the same, and that the petitioner has a right to proceed before the other appropriate for a. 4. In light of the submissions advan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 substantial. The grounds of dispute, of course, must not consist of some ingenious mask Invented to deprive a creditor of a just and honest entitlement and must not be a mere wrangle. It is settled law that if the creditor's debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, the court should dismiss the peti....