SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI,J. - (1.) The Court : Despite the initial sound and fury, there appears to be no defence to the claim after all.
(2.) The appellant questions the propriety of an order by which a creditor's winding-up petition has been admitted. The claim was on account of two sets of high-seas sales and some local transactions.
(3.) Upon the statutory notice being issued by the petitioning creditor on January 12, 2016, the appellant responded on February 15, 2016, alleging that one Manish Khanna, who was previously a director of the appellant company, was responsible for the Chennai operations of the company and it was discovered that such person had acted against the interests of the company and had falsified the company's books and records and pilfered its stocks and assets. It was also alleged in response to the statutory notice that the said Khanna was in league with the directors of the claimant. Towards the end of the letter of February 15, 2016, the company asserted that there was nothing in the company's records to show the delivery of the goods claimed to have been supplied by the claimant to the appellant company; and the appellant company called for the evidence in such regard.;