AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna
The Official Liquidator on behalf of the Company in liquidation has filed the instant application u/s 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act read with Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules, 1959. By the said application, a sum of Rs. 6,47,394/- with interest thereon has been claimed from the respondent company. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the application papers.
The Company in liquidation was ordered to be wound up by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2004 passed in Co.P. No. 166/2001 and other connected petitions. Subsequent thereto, the erstwhile Directors of the Company in liquidation are stated to have filed their statement of affairs. In the enclosed statement relating to the details of the amount due from the debtors to the Foundry division at Harihar, the name of the respondent company is indicated as being due in a sum of Rs. 6,47,394.79ps. The receivable ledger for the period 1.6.2000 to 01.04.2004 has also reflected the said amount as against the name of the respondent herein with reference to the invoices under which the machines are stated to have been supplied to the respondent. The Official Liquidator having taken note of the same has issued notice dated 14.06.2006 to the respondent calling upon them to pay the amount. The respondent replying to the same on 24.07.2006 sought for further time to issue a detailed reply. But, however, at the outset, it is contended that they are not liable to pay the said amount. It is in that context the instant application has been filed and the respondent herein has been notified.
The respondent on entering appearance before this Court has filed detailed objection statement to refute the claim put forth in the application. The business relationship between the Company in liquidation and the respondent has not been denied. However, with regard to the claim made in the application, the respondent-company has adverted to the same and have contended that though certain machines were supplied by the Company in liquidation to the respondent, in respect of the machines that were in good order, the respondents have paid and discharged the amount. Certain other machines which did not conform to the requirements have been rejected and the rejection entries have been noted in the accounts maintained by the respondent-company. It is therefore contended that the respondent is not liable to pay the amount as claimed. But, on the other hand, on reconciliation of the accounts, the Company in liquidation in fact was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 61,871.91 to the respondent-company is the contention.
Since the respondent had disputed the claim put forth in the application, the matter was set down for recording the evidence which has been recorded. In that light, Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.
One Sri Jambayya, working as a paid Assistant in the office of the Official Liquidator has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit claiming a sum of Rs. 6,47,394.79 by making a similar statement as made in the application. The list based on which the claim has been made is marked as Ex. P1 and the receivable ledger relating to sundry debtors for the period from 01.06.2000 to 01.04.2004 is marked as Ex. P2 and the relevant entries relating to the invoices under which the claims are put forth are marked as Ex. P2(a) and (b). The notice dated 14.06.2006 issued to the respondent is marked as Ex. P3 and the reply of the respondent is at Ex. P4 The cross examination of the said witness would indicate that the respondent, in line with the contention which had been put forth in the objection statement has confronted the document at Ex. P2 to the witness to refer to the entries contained therein indicating the credits shown in respect of the payment which has also been shown on the debit side. Further, suggestions have also been made to the said witness to point out that in respect of certain machines supplied, the respondent had rejected it and the same has been indicated by the respondents in their accounts for the relevant period to show that the payment is not due as the machines supplied had been rejected by them. The witness has admitted his ignorance with regard to the said aspect of the matter.
Keeping in view the nature of evidence tendered by PW. 1 and certain admissions made in his cross examination, a reference to the evidence tendered by one Sri G. Mukund working as Deputy General Manager (Finance) in the respondent company, who was examined as RW.1, would indicate that the said witness has made specific reference to the invoices under which the supplies were made was rejected and also with regard to the payments made relating to other invoices and which has been shown as credits in the very statement relied on at Ex. P2. Keeping in view the evidence that was put forth and the document that was marked at Ex. D2 relating to the rejections and the statement as maintained by them from the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.08.2000 it would indicate that the invoices claimed as dues in the statement maintained by the Company in liquidation are the very same invoices, the supplies made thereunder have been rejected. For the purpose of demonstration and better understanding, a perusal of Ex. P2 as pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the respondent would refer to the invoice bearing No. S2007054/1 which has been indicated in the statement for the periods 01.06.2000 to 01.04.2004 relied on by the applicants. A corresponding entry to the same is noticed in Ex. D2 maintained by the Respondents for the periods from 01.07.2000 to 31.07.2000. Since the said invoice is found in Ex. P2 for the period commencing from 01.06.2000 and the rejection of the same is indicated in the statement maintained by the respondent at Ex. D2 for the period from 01.07.2000 to 31.07.2000, the same clearly demonstrates the contention which has been put forth by the respondent. Similar entries are available with regard to the other invoice which has been noticed and need not he specifically referred.
Keeping those aspects in view, it is seen that the respondents though had business relations with the Company in liquidation and the entries relating to the same were shown in Ex. P2 by the Company in liquidation, from the entries pointed out in Ex. P2 itself it would indicate that relating to certain invoices credit has been shown in the said statement which has been claimed as due subsequently. Further with regard to the other invoices which has been shown as debit in Ex. P2, the same have been rejected by the respondents which as already noticed above has been demonstrated by the respondent. Therefore, keeping these aspects in view, I am of the opinion that the claim as made in the application has not been proved with any other supporting evidence other than the said statement which has been controverted by the respondent by tendering their evidence both oral as well as documentary. Hence the claim is not sustainable. The application is dismissed.