- (1.) BOTH the basis of the claim and the defence are as dishonest as they come, but on a comparative assessment of the level of dishonesty, the Company Court may err - if it must - on the side of the company in the winding up jurisdiction.
(2.) THE short claim of the petitioner is that it made an inter-corporate deposit of an amount of Rs.20 lakh with the company. THE petitioner has relied on the document under which it made the payment. THE letter is dated November 17, 2009 and appears to have been received by the company with the company's rubber-stamp and the signature of an office-bearer thereof. THE petitioner's letter referred to only "the Deposit" and not to any intercorporate deposit. THE letter did speak of any tenure or interest. On October 5, 2010, the petitioner demanded repayment of the sum of Rs.20 lakh together with interest and had this to say in the first paragraph of the letter addressed to the company: "Whereas a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- {Rupees Twenty lacs only) was given to you vide cheque No. 514671 dated 17th November, 2009 drawn on Bank of Baroda, India Exchange Place Branch, Kolkata towards Inter Corporate Deposit bearing interest @ 13% per annum for a period of 6 months." It is evident from the letter that the petitioner claimed that the cheque for Rs.20 lakh tendered under cover of the letter dated November 17, 2009 reflected an inter-corporate deposit which was to carry interest and which was payable after a fixed duration. These minor matters did not find mention in the letter of November 17, 2009.
(3.) THE company's response to the October 5, 2010 letter was by way of a writing of October 18, 2010 where it claimed that a director of the petitioner had entered into a transaction with the company for the acquisition of the company's interest in a property and the payment of Rs.20 lakh was part of such transaction. To boot, the company added that the agreement had not been honoured by the petitioner company or its director and a substantial sum remained due and owing to the company from the petitioner or its director. The petitioner refuted the allegations contained in the company's letter of October 18 and sent the statutory notice on December 22, 2010, insisting on the claim made in the letter dated October 5, 2010 and referring to what the petitioner called was the fraudulent stand taken by the company in the letter dated October 18, 2000.;