V K JAIN Vs. RICHA LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner againstthe respondent company alleging that the respondent company is indebted tothe petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3,15,165.00which the respondent companyfailed to pay despite a notice of demand dated 25/03/1988 underSection 434 of the Companies Act having been served on the company. It isfurther pointed out that the company kept on shifting its Registered Officewithout filing any return with the Registrar of Companies and that a noticewas ultimately served on 21/05/1988. Despite such service the respondentcompany did not pay the dues of the petitioner nor took any steps tocompound the dues.

(2.) The petition was resisted on various ground which have beenrefuted by the petitioner in the rejoinder. The respondent has alleged thatthere exists a bonafide dispute about the claim of the petitioner. Therespondent while disputing the liability and delivery of goods the price whereof is claimed by the petitioner has taken the plea that the respondentreceived licence to manufacture pharmaceuticals by the Drug Control andLicencing Authority, Delhi only on 13.5.1986 whereas all the bills on thebasis whereof the present action has been initiated relate to period prior toMay 1986. The respondent has denied having been supplied any basic drugsby the Manufacturer through the petitioner. This plea, as would appearfrom what is noticed hereinafter is without any merit. The respondent hasalso raised a plea that the notice was fabricated and no statutory notice hadbeen served. However, this plea at the time of arguments was given up bythe Counsel for the respondent on being confronted with the A.D. card. Inany event. I must notice that this plea on the face of the record is malafideand false. Another objection raised by the respondent is that the letter ofbalance confirmation signed by Mr. A.K. Racharya is fabricated inasmuchas the said letter was given on 26/10/1985 by Mr. A.K.. Racharaya inhis capacity as sole propreitor of Richa Laboratories which is alleged to behis sole propreitorship concern. It is alleged that the date on this letter hasbeen changed from 26.10.85 to 26.12.85 only to bring the petitioner's claimwithin the period of limitation, with regard to the stamp of the respondentcompany, Counsel stated that the petitioner Mr. Vijay Kumar Jain, proprietorof v. Parkash and Company was also one of the Directors of the respondentand in that capacity he had in his possession a rubber stamp of the companyand such stamp was affixed by Mr, Jain himself after interpolating the datethereon. I may note that although this letter is being attributed to the soleproprietorship concern which is alleged to be different from the RespondentCompany, yet the carbon copy of the original was produced by therespondent's Counsel from the respondents custody. Furthermore, noexplanation is forthcoming as to how the respondent was in possession of thecarbon copy of the letter dated 26.12.85 when according to them this letterdid not pertain to the company and had been forged and fabricated by thepetitioner by altering the date and also by affixing the rubber stamp of thecompany. It was further stated that the proprietory concern was changed to apartnership and the assets and liabilities of the partnership were taken overby the respondent Company. The petitioner has also refuted the plea ofinterpolating the letter confirming the balance. It was pointed out that if theletter had been signed in October 1985 the balance amount would have beenonly Rs. 1.75,165.00which was the debit balance upto 26/10/1985.The amount of Rs. 3,50.000.00 was the debit balance on 26.12.85 only, in thelight of this I feel that the correction of date, if any, must have been carriedout by Mr. Racharya himself.

(3.) Next it was contended that the petitioner has already instituted asuit for the recovery of the amount referred to in the,present petition and assuch that matter will be done into on its own merits after recording evidence.For that reason also, this Hon'ble Court should not proceed with thispetition.