TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 1598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and payable to the petitioner under a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties on 9th August, 2. Feedback Ventures Pvt. Ltd., i.e. the first respondent, is a private limited company, whose registered office falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is stated to be, inter alia, in the business of rendering consultancy services in managerial, engineering, industrial and technical matters. The second respondent is the Public Works Department, Public Health Branch, Government of Haryana, and is a proforma respondent. 3. It is the petitioner's case that a Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the petitioner and the first respondent on 9th August, 2005, whereby the parties agreed to collaborate to submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of-pocket expenses related to the assignment, would be divided amongst the parties on a 50:50 basis." According to the petitioner, the total expenditure of the project was budgeted by the parties themselves at Rs. 78,81,100/-. 4. Ultimately, this consortium of the petitioner and the first respondent was awarded the contract by the second respondent, being a, "Contract for Consultants' Services for JBIC Assisted Reform Action Plan for Six Towns of Haryana Under YAP - II", for a total ceiling value of Rs. 1,49,43,267/-. The aforesaid contract was executed between the first and second respondents on 22nd February, 2006. It was modified in March 2006 to also include the town of 'Jagadhari' for an additional fee. The work under this contra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te that would oblige this Court to consider whether the first respondent ought to be wound up. 7. A statement of expenses that had so far been incurred in the project was provided to the petitioner by the first respondent in March 2007. With reference to this statement of expenses, the petitioner sent an email dated 23rd April, 2007, wherein it expressed its concern that the expenses incurred by the first respondent were higher than expected. Communications dated 30th April, 2007, 7th May, 2007 and 25th July, 2007, were also sent by the petitioner, reiterating the same. Thereafter, in another email dated 30th August, 2007, the petitioner stated that, since the project had been concluded, and since it had received some payment by this dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Rs. 9.65 Lacs) vide cheque no. 001650 dated March 31, 2007 drawn on YES BANK LIMITED payable at New Delhi." In the same communication, the first respondent also disputed the fee claimed by the petitioner for the additional work in relation to the town of Jagadhari, stating that the total additional fee in respect thereof was Rs. 3,00,000/-, instead of the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- being mentioned by the petitioner. In this context, the petitioner has filed a copy of the minutes of a meeting held on 7th December, 2006 between the first respondent's representatives and the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, P.H. Branch, Government of Haryana, showing that the amount to be paid in respect of the work for Jagadhari town was Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....according to the first respondent, the petitioner's share came to approximately Rs. 21.65 lakh. Furthermore, the first respondent has also filed CA No. 786/200, seeking a reference to arbitration under S.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 14. The petitioner then filed an application under the Right to Information Act with the second respondent, inquiring about the payments released by it to the first respondent in respect of the project. There, the second respondent has stated that all amounts that had been claimed by the first respondent on behalf of the consortium were paid, except for a deduction of approximately Rs. 3,08,000/- effected by it. However, the fact remains that the first respondent was the lead consultant in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat require a trial and, it would be dangerous for the company court to assume the indebtedness of the second respondent to the petitioner merely on the basis of some communication issued by the third respondent to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, without anything more. 15. The first respondent's main contention is that additional and unforeseen expenses were incurred for a number of reasons, including, inter alia, a delay in the completion of the project, and that, therefore, the amount payable to the petitioner was proportionately reduced in terms of Clause 11 of the Memorandum of Understanding. Therefore, whether the additional expense, either fully or in part, that was allegedly incurred, was validly incurred or not....