PRAJVI INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES Vs. CAPRI POLYMIX P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned advocates on both sides. A peculiar legal position has arisen in this case because the respondents' learned counsel filed a memo before the court setting out the details of the transactions and all the payments that have been made. The submission that was canvassed was that apart from the present proceedings, the petitioners have also instituted criminal proceedings and that when the present winding up proceedings were filed, credit for an amount of Rs. 70,466 was not given to the respondents even though this amount had already been paid by them and that a much larger amount was shown as outstanding. To this, the petitioners' learned advocate has stated that when he referred the matter to his clients they informed him that the respondents used to make delayed payments and that consequently, the petitioners had adjusted those amounts against earlier supplies. This explanation is totally untenable because a court expects total honesty from the parties approaching the court and even if according to the petitioners they have a right to appropriate the payments, the requirement of law is that the receipts should not be suppressed.

(2.) THE respondents' learned counsel submitted that because of the institution of these proceedings and the threat of winding up as also the other proceedings, his clients had made the payments as set out in the tabulation filed with the court and that they have paid an excess amount of Rs. 42,239, even if the respondents were to concede the interest claimed at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition up to December 11, 1998. This is an unusual application made on behalf of the respondents that the excess amount be directed to be refunded to the respondents.

(3.) THIS last prayer has been seriously opposed by petitioners' learned counsel on a variety of grounds. Firstly, his submission is that as per the invoices, the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 22 per cent. per annum on all the transactions wherein the payments have been delayed. His contention is that, therefore, there would have to be recomputation of the agreed interest outstanding and the petitioners should be permitted to follow this procedure. His submission is that the petitioners are still entitled to claim certain amounts from the respondents under the head of interest and the petitioners have asked for liberty from this court to institute appropriate proceedings for recovery of their dues. As far as this prayer is concerned, the same is allowed and the petitioners are permitted if the law justifies to institute appropriate recovery proceedings in the event of any amounts being outstanding to them.