AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner claiming to have carried on business in the name and style of M/s. Ashwin Industries Pvt. Ltd., subsequently changed the name to M/s. Dhruva Machine Works Pvt. Ltd., within the knowledge of the first respondent-company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which had a continuous business contract with the petitioner.
According to the petitioner in the course of business transaction the respondent became liable to pay to the petitioner Rs. 5,94,813.65 as on 10-6-2006 as against which the respondent confirmed the balance and issued a cheque for Rs. 66,789 on 12-7-2006. The cheque when presented for payment was honoured, thus leaving a balance of Rs. 5,28,024.49. According to the petitioner, the respondent having placed an order for developing some design and models, required the petitioner to invest Rs. 5,20,000 for dies (models and designs) and is willing to deliver and hand over the same to the respondent on payment of Rs. 5,28,024.49 with interest. The statutory notice dated 17-7-2006 Annexure-D when acknowledged was responded by reply dated 7-8-2006 Annexure-E through learned Counsel inter alia denying the claim while maintaining that the respondent was ready and willing to release the amount only if the products are delivered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the business transaction entered into between them.
It is stated that by notice dated 7-8-2006 Annexure-F the respondent admitted that it is due to the petitioner Rs. 1,44,396.76 as on 31-7-2006 on account of supply of materials which was responded by reply dated 24-8-2006 Annexure-G stating that the respondent is due Rs. 10,48,024.49. Yet again on 3-7-2009, the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the respondent demanding Rs. 16,13,957.69 with interest at 18 per cent per annum which when acknowledged by the respondent the claim was refuted. By reply notice dated 14-7-2009 Annexure-J, inter alia it was contended that the supplies of materials were defective and that the petitioner on rectifying the defects would be entitled to the admitted sum of Rs. 1,44,396.76.
Having perused the pleadings, and examined the Annexures, undoubtedly there is no material forthcoming over the invoices or contract relating to supply of materials or the value of dies, which the respondent is due and payable. The amount due is also not crystallized. In the absence of which, it cannot be said that the respondent is due in a certain sum of money. The justification for the respondent not to make over Rs. 1,44,396.76 to the petitioner company in the circumstances, does not appear to be a moon shine defence. In the result, petition stands rejected.