CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INDIA (P.) LTD. Vs. ODM MEDIA SERVICES INDIA (P.) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is noticed that the respondent who was earlier represented by the counsel is not represented any more as the counsel is retired and there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of display of advertisements on bus shelters and other public places. The respondent is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956, in the State of Karnataka and the respondent is also engaged in similar business of outdoor advertisements and in the course of their business, the respondent had approached the petitioner requesting to display the advertisement on bus shelters and other places and the petitioner had agreed to pay a fee for such use of the same for the period from 28/9/2010 to 27/3/2011. The respondent is said to have placed the order orally and had agreed to send a written purchase order after the display of the advertisement. Since the representatives of the petitioner-company and the representatives of the respondent-company were known to each other personally, there was no insistence on the formal documentation. Every transaction was carried on and the first purchase order placed was on 10/11/2010 to display advertisement at 17 locations between the period 28/9/2010 to 27/1/2011. In furtherance of which, there was an agreement entered into dated 22/11/2010, though it was incorrectly mentioned in the deed as 22/11/2009 indicating the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is pursuant to this that the respondent had fallen into arrears of payment under the said agreement in a sum of RS. 5,56,435.00 and therefore further agreement was entered into on 15/12/2010 which is incorrectly mentioned in the deed as 22/11/2009 and the respondent was to pay a sum of RS. 5,29,440.00 under the second agreement. In this manner, several purchase orders placed on the petitioner which are shown in tabular form in the notice issued under Sec. 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 to the respondent when the respondent failed to satisfy the same, which are as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_540_LAWS(KAR)4_2014.htm</FRM>

(2.) The respondent did not chose to reply to the notice and it is only in this proceedings, after service of notice manually, having entered appearance, had filed statement of objections, while admitting the transactions, though raising objections as to the varying dates in respect of which such liability may be due. The respondent has also stated that the tax authorities had seized the various documents pertaining to the transaction and that the respondents were not in a position to address the claim completely. It is in this manner that the respondent halfheartedly seeks to deny the liability.