- (1.) This winding up application is coming up for admission. The petitioner has a letter of credit limit from its bankers and establishes of credit on behalf of its customers or otherwise arrange finance when the customer do not have means to make immediate payment for goods to be purchased by them. Petitioner also stores and handles newsprint for its customers. Being approached by the Company from time to time and being informed by the Company that they had directly placed orders on different mills and have purchased newsprint but did not have the fund to pay the basic price of such goods, taxes, transportation costs, etc., the petitioner agreed to procure the newsprint from such mills upon making all payments and to arrange storage of newsprint reels in its godown, insure the goods and to deliver the same to the Company. The petitioner agreed to perform this job on some terms and conditions for which an agreement was entered into. The terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by and between the Company and the petitioner reads as follows: - JUDGEMENT_11_CC171_2012.html
(2.) Mr. Chowdhury learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the agreed terms and conditions the petitioner took delivery of newsprint rolls from the mill upon payment of the bills and supplied the same to the Company.
(3.) It was further submitted by Mr. Choudhury that by a letter dated June 11, 2009 the Company have confirmed that an amount of Rs.66,27,163/- (rupees sixty six lakhs twenty seven thousand one hundred sixty three) is payable by them to the petitioner towards cost of material, overdue interest and petitioner s charges. It was submitted that the Company failed and neglected to make payment against the outstanding dues for which the petitioner also could not pay its banker and the banker of the petitioner had stopped operation of the petitioner s bank account which had become irregular on account of failure on the part of the Company to make payment of its contractual dues to the petitioner. He also submitted that a meeting was held between the director of the petitioner as well as the Managing Director of the Company when they requested the petitioner for a discount in view of its precarious financial condition. By a letter dated 20th October, 2009 the petitioner wrote to the Company that a total sum of Rs.1,45,78,144.25 was due and payable by the Company to the petitioner as on 30th September, 2009. By another letter dated 20th October, 2009 the petitioner agreed to give the Company a lumpsum discount of Rs.18,00,000/- provided the Company pay off all its dues by 30th November, 2009 in two installments. In reply to that the Company by its letter dated 20th October, 2009 and 26th October, 2009 wrote to the petitioner that they have purportedly overcharged the Company for the newsprint supply and that other publications had purchased newsprint at lower rates, etc. The Company in its letter dated 26th October, 2009 purportedly claimed that the petitioner purportedly agreed to a reduction of Rs.1000/- per metric tonne on all newsprint supplied since January 2007 till that date which according to the petitioner are all incorrect and untrue.;