SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The claim of the petitioning-creditor is on account of unpaid amount for services rendered under a conversion agreement. The petitioner has relied on the conversion agreement and says that the company would make available the raw material for the petitioner to convert it into the specified grade of pig iron and sinter and make over the same to the company. The petitioner claims that a principal sum in excess of Rs. 3 crore remains due on account of conversion charges. A short statutory notice was issued by advocate representing the petitioner on January 15, 2009 detailing the outstanding bills.
(2.) The company responded on September 24, 2009 by suggesting that not only was there no sum due from the company to the petitioner, but it was the company which was entitled to recover a substantial amount from the petitioner. The company's reply to the statutory notice spoke of the conversion agreement of February 19, 2007 and an amendment thereto of August 23, 2007 referred to in the statutory notice and also of four other amendments of September 12, 2007, July 17, 2008, July 29, 2008 and October 17, 2008.
(3.) The company claimed in its reply to the statutory notice that the parties had taken stock of the material lying at the petitioner's manufacturing facility and there was a joint reconciliation statement signed on November 2, 2008. The company quoted its records to suggest that raw material of value in excess of Rs. 1.8 crore remained with the petitioner and the petitioner had failed to account therefor. In addition, the company said that it had supplied coke of value in excess of Rs. 2 crore which had not been accounted for by the petitioner. The company complained that notwithstanding adequate raw material having been supplied and coke of higher grade having been made available to the petitioner, the petitioner could not convert the material as per the agreed specifications which caused serious hardship to the company in course of its process of manufacture. The company claimed that it had suffered loss and damage on account of the petitioner in excess of Rs. 5 crore.;