SANJIB BANERJEE ,J. - (1.) The company is not represented despite service and despite affidavit directions having been communicated to it. There are affidavits of service to such effect that have been filed by the petitioner. The company did not respond to the statutory notice either. The statutory notice, issued on August 25, 2011, claimed that the company had failed to pay a sum of Rs. 16,48,120/-on account of balance cost of advertisements being issued on behalf of the company by the petitioner. There was a mistake in the reference of certain cheque numbers in the statutory notice which was corrected by a subsequent letter of September 13, 2011. The company appears to have received both the statutory notice and the corrigendum thereto but did not issue a reply.
(2.) The company had issued a publication order of December 20, 2011 requiring the petitioner to publish advertisements of the company in the Anandabazar Patrika, The Times of India, Aajkal and Pratidin newspapers. The advertisements were apparently published in the December 24, 2010 editions of the four dailies. The company had issued two post-dated cheques of Rs. 9,90,000/- and Rs. 8,39,433/- as part payment towards the publications. The company had, according to the petitioner, undertaken to make the balance payment by February 24, 2011.
(3.) The two cheques were dishonoured upon presentation. The petitioner issued a demand notice on March 8, 2011 calling upon the company to make payment of its dues whereupon the company made payment of a sum of Rs. 2 lakh, leaving the balance of Rs. 16,48,120/- unpaid.;