- (1.) The Court: Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner against the claims raised by the respondent, Mr. Saha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits if the deductions to the running bills are not restricted to the claims of the respondent company as reflected in page 307 of the application, the day -to -day functioning of the company would come to a standstill. Mr. Bose raises a point of demurrer by referring to an earlier order dated 18th May, 2016 passed in AP No.284 of 2016 wherein the petitioner was called upon to register itself under the Companies (Registration of Foreign Companies) Rules, 2014 in order to maintain any action before this Court. Mr. Bose also disputes the fact that the petitioner is entitled to receive payments due under the contract. In reply, Mr. Saha draws my attention to the registration of the company under the relevant rules at page 58 of the petition.
(2.) I have considered the averments in the petition in the light of the respective submissions of the parties. I find that the claim of the respondent company has been quantified at page 307 and the deductions are being made at a rate by way of an arrangement as reflected in pages 297 and 302 of the petition. Prima facie, the respondent company appears to have a right to make such deductions in terms of the said arrangement. However, the petitioner is also entitled to receive his running bills over and above such claim. It also appears that the petitioner has registered itself under the relevant rules enabling it to maintain the present action.
(3.) While keeping the issue of maintainability open, I direct that the respondent company shall pay the petitioner the running bills raised upon it in terms of the agreement over and above the claims as reflected in page 307 of the petition and deducted in terms of the arrangement, as aforesaid. Such payments shall, however, be made upon the petitioner agreeing to indemnify the respondent in respect of any other rival claim with regard thereto.;