- (1.) The claim of the petitioning creditor is on account of refund of a booking deposit made in February, 2012. The petitioner claims that the company is the agent or dealers for Mercedez -Benz cars and the refund is sought of a booking amount which did not mature into a sale.
(2.) The documents relied upon by the petitioner include a receipt issued by the company on February 20, 2012, a letter addressed to the company on September 28, 2012 seeking a confirmation of the retention of the deposit, a balance confirmation of accounts apparently signed on behalf of the company on April 1, 2012, a statutory notice of December 2, 2013 that was not followed up with any winding -up petition being filed, a further lawyer's notice of September 16, 2014 issued to, inter alia, the company, an equivocal notice in the form of an e -mail issued by the petitioner to some official of Mercedez Benz India(P) Ltd and another mail of June 11, 2014 from Mercedez Benz India(P) Ltd. The petitioner has also appended a copy of the latest statutory notice of September 16, 2015 and the curious reply thereto of October 6, 2015.
(3.) There is an admitted primary document of a cash receipt, but notwithstanding the claim being one for refund of a booking amount, there is not a single line written by the petitioner demanding any car. Though the petitioner refers to the long -winded story made out in the affidavit -in -opposition, it is extremely suspicious that a booking amount would be tendered, a confirmation therefor would be demanded, but there would be no demand for the delivery of the car for years together. In fact, the documents relied upon by the petitioner fit in well with the defence made out in the opposition.;