SACHIN J. NADIG Vs. DENTSPLY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

(2.) Application stands disposed of.

(3.) Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent on advance notice and submits that the petitioner has filed the present petition with mala fide intention. He further submits that as in 2016, the petitioner was in total debt of Rs.10,61,952.00 . He further submits that the legal notice was issued on 12.05.2017 which was received by the petitioner on 15.05.2017. He also submits that the NEFT transfer of Rs.5,02,316.00 made by the petitioner was not within 15 days period of the demand and further the same was not in any way towards the clearance of the debt in the present case. Lastly, it is submitted that bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner vide order dtd. 26.03.2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.