AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Patnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant (the company). He submits, the application is for recall of order dated 19th July, 2022, by which the winding up petition was admitted. He refers to disclosure in the application being reply dated 7th September, 2013 to the statutory notice. He submits, there was denial of the claim and as such the claim could not have been said to be a debt due to petitioner, for admitting the winding up petition. He submits further, inspite of due diligence this letter was overlooked earlier. Hence, the application for review.
Mr. Baug, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner he has not been called upon to submit.
Paragraphs 4 and 6 from said reply dated 7th September, 2019 are reproduced below.
“4. MoU are being executed on as per the need of the time with both party agreed for running further business. On 29/05/2012 one MoU has signed for supply of Chrome Sinter to SR Refractories the nominated buyer of Krsna Minerals. It is strange that you have attributed allegation against my client that by June 2013 through my client have received a sum of Rs.1,96,71,136/- for the material to be supplied to your client but my client failed to do so which is baseless. The real state of affairs is that due to global recession and bad international market your client did not intend to execute further MoU to lift the material.
That the amount in question is never be construed as a legal enforceable debt in view of the settlement of account as per MoU dated 10.6.2013. In course of scrutiny it is transpired that Form-I No.B 0034111 has been issued by Krsna Minerals though the material has been supplied to SR Refractories which is illegal, unauthorized in as much as violation of the provision of CST act, Central Excise & Customs Act in as much as is nothing but committing illegal act by your client which is already intimated to your client earlier. The Form-I No.Boooo376 issued by Durga Monolithics Pvt. Ltd. against the chrome sinter supplied to Durga Monolithics Pvt. Ltd. on a/c of Krsna Minerals is also defective, incomplete one. It is unfortunate that irrespective of protracted request to your client the legal, required relevant documents are not supplied till date emanating out of which the statement position is crept up now in as much as your client is responsible for that.”
It will appear from above quoted paragraphs, dispute sought to be raised on the debt due to petitioning in creditor is on the basis of settlement of account per writing dated 10th June, 2013. Said writing is at page-10 of the winding up petition and relied upon in making of order dated 19th July, 2022 as would appear from paragraph-4 therein, reproduced below.
“4.It appears, there is no dispute regarding the debt owing from the company to petitioner. The petition also discloses writing dated 10th June, 2013 issued by the company and accepted by petitioner saying, inter alia, during course of business transactions, a sum of Rs.1,96,71,136/- remains outstanding of petitioner with the company. The letter says further that both parties mutually decided to settle outstanding amount by allowing the company to repay within two months to petitioner and with the letter was being issued a cheque for said amount, drawn in favour of petitioner, to be held as additional security. The company has not been able to demonstrate any payment made pursuant to said letter.”
The application is without merit. It is dismissed.
............................................