TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an RTGS transfer following the petitioner's request for a loan. The petitioner says that after giving credit to the amount paid by the company to the petitioner, the principal sum due is to the tune of Rs. 1.21 crore. 3. In response to the statutory notice of September 17, 2013, the company issued a detailed reply on September 30, 2013. The substance of the company's reply was that upon the company seeking a credit facility of about Rs. 2 crore from the petitioner, the petitioner agreed to provide the same after deducting interest upfront and inflating the amount lent to the company by taking back a substantial part thereof in cash. According to the company's reply, against the company's request for financing an amount of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1881 in the Sessions Court in Mumbai for certain cheques which had been issued by the company to the petitioner being dishonoured on presentation. It is evident from the petitioner's statement in the Mumbai proceedings that payments of at least Rs. 5 lakh and Rs. 2 lakh appear to have been received in cash by the petitioner and on or about the two specific dates which are indicated at Annexure 'H' to the company's affidavit in the present proceedings. There is, therefore, a basis to the company's contention that part payments had been made by the company to the petitioner in cash and the petitioner's contention at paragraph 15 of the affidavit-in-reply that no payment was received by it in cash is incorrect. 6. How....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f its debt of Rs. 119 lakh to the petitioner as evident from the document of November 16, 2013 could have been on the basis of any "draft" that had been forwarded to the company on November 26, 2013. Even though these two documents of November 16, 2013 and December 2, 2013 would belie the contents of the company's response of September 30, 2013 to the statutory notice issued by the petitioner, it is possible that the letter dated December 2, 2013 was based on the suggested terms thereof as prepared and forwarded on behalf of the petitioner to the company on November 26, 2013. In the light of the company's stand, both in its reply to the statutory notice and in the affidavits filed in the present proceedings, that the petitioner as a....