CAPRICORN OILS LIMITED Vs. M/S. MULTICHEM
LAWS(CAL)-2017-7-74
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 26,2017

CAPRICORN OILS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. Multichem Respondents

JUDGEMENT

I.P.MUKERJI,J. - (1.) The Court : This is a winding up application, at the stage of admission.
(2.) The claim of the petitioning creditor is founded on goods, namely, activated carbon, activated bleaching earth sold by them to the respondent company between 7th April, 2012 and 5th May, 2012. Their claim is for Rs. 4,08,318/-. The respondent company has raised only one defence. Its previous management was guilty of very serious wrongdoing against the company. The transaction in question was also part of this wrongdoing. There was no real transaction between the petitioner and the company and a false claim has been raised by the petitioner.
(3.) The said goods were allegedly supplied by the petitioner between 7th April, 2012 and 5th May, 2012. The present management took over the reigns of the company on 7th May, 2012. Even if company's defence is true, letters were written by the petitioner on 22nd May, 2012 (annexure B at page 15 of the petition), 21st June, 2012 (page 16 of the petition) and 2nd July, 2016 (page 20 of the petition) claiming payment for the above supply. The company did not reply to those letters. At least the defence now taken by the company ought to have been taken at that point of time. Mr. Saha for the company says that his client did not receive these letters which is disbelieved by the Court. The reason for disbelieving Mr. Saha is that admittedly the statutory notice dated 24th March, 2014 was received by the company. In that statutory notice, the claim was made in detail. Reference was made to the earlier reminders. In spite of this, the company did not reply to it. Moreover, according to the petitioner, a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- dated 11th February, 2014 was sought to be handed over by the company to them, in part payment of their dues which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Mr. Saha says that this cheque was not issued for the transactions in question. If this is the defence of the company, why was not the leave of this Court taken to file a rejoinder to the affidavit in reply ?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.