SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The claim of the petitioner is on account of balance price of goods sold and delivered. The petitioner claims to have supplied goods of value in excess of Rs. 82 lakh between November, 2008 and January, 2010. The statutory notice of May 24, 2011 spoke of the company having paid slightly over Rs. 55 lakh to leave a principal outstanding amount of about Rs. 26 lakh.
(2.) The company received the statutory notice but did not respond thereto. There is, thus, a presumption as to the company's inability to pay its debt. In its affidavit, the company has said that it made payment of a total sum in excess of Rs. 73 lakh against goods of value of about Rs. 55 lakh that it received. The company's schedule of payments indicates that all the payments, except three amounts of Rs. 5 lakh each, were paid by cheques. Even if the sum of Rs. 15 lakh is disregarded as having been paid to the petitioner, it would appear that the company paid slightly over Rs. 56 lakh to the petitioner against goods of value of slightly less than Rs. 56 lakh.
(3.) The difference between the company and the petitioner on account of value of the goods supplied appears to be in respect of three consignments. The company has relied on three letters issued by it to the petitioner and the petitioner's response thereto, in support of the company's contention that defective or damaged material had been supplied by the petitioner and such fact was contemporaneously brought to the notice of the petitioner and acknowledged by the petitioner. The petitioner has denied the existence of the three letters claimed by the company to have been issued by it and the reply said to have been issued by the petitioner to the company's three letters. The originals of the four documents have been produced in Court today and Advocate representing the petitioner has had a chance to look at them.;