SANJIB BANERJEE, J. - (1.) The claim is for refund of advance payment made. The petitioner claims to have made payment of a sum of Rs. 1,22,40,000/- along with a purchase order for supply of 3,000 MT of iron ore by the company to the petitioner. The petitioner says that the company supplied 1577.14 MT out of the agreed quantity but failed to supply the balance. The claim is in lieu of the company's failure to deliver the balance goods.
(2.) The petitioner says that ledger accounts pertaining to the transactions for the period April 1, 2008 to June 12, 2009, duly confirmed by the company, would reveal that a sum of Rs. 76,56,883.60 remained due and owing from the company to the petitioner as at June 12, 2009. The petitioner says that after giving credit to some payments received from the company subsequent to June 12, 2009, a principal sum of Rs. 64,56,883.60 now remains outstanding. The petitioner says that several cheques were issued by the company of which cheques of total value of Rs. 10 lakh were dishonoured upon presentation and despite demand the company has failed to make good such sum. The petitioner submits that further post-dated cheques had been issued by the company to the petitioner but were returned by the petitioner to the company in the petitioner's bona fide belief that fresh cheques for the amounts covered by such cheques would be issued or the payments covered thereby would otherwise be released.
(3.) The company says that the company is unable to effect any further supply since the mines in Orissa from where the supplies were effected have been closed down by the appropriate authorities. The company says that the company has made payment of a substantial part of the sum due to the petitioner save an amount of Rs. 10 lakh. The company has questioned the veracity of the ledger accounts relied upon by the petitioner and has suggested that, in addition to the amount admitted by the petitioner, further payments have been made in cash by the company to the petitioner in lieu of the cheques issued which have been returned by the petitioner. The company claims to be in possession of a number of cheques that had been issued in favour of the petitioner. The company suggests that unless the petitioner had been paid off the amount, whether in cash or by some other adjustment, no commercially-minded person in the position of the petitioner would have returned the cheques that had originally been issued to the petitioner. The company has, however, admitted its indebtedness to the extent of Rs. 10 lakh in respect of the dishonoured cheques. Without prejudice to its rights and contentions, the company has offered to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 20 lakh if the claim of the petitioning creditor is relegated to a suit.;