ILS CARGO (P.) LTD. Vs. KANAK PROJECTS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This winding up petition relates to a claim for money and lent advanced as well as money paid on behalf of the company for discharge of their liabilities. The company from time to time acknowledged payment as would appear from several acknowledgements annexed to the winding up petition. Ultimately, a sum of Rs. 6,51,652 became due and payable. Statutory Notice of Demand was replied to by the company through their Advocate -on -record wherein except dispute raised on account of confirmation of accounts no categoric averment was made by the company. In the Affidavit -in -opposition the company have taken the plea that the winding up petition is not maintainable as the Statutory Notice of Demand was not served at the registered office of the company, In support of such contention the company has relied upon the Xerox copy of the Certificate of Registration dated 6th July, 2000 wherein it appears that the registered office of the company was situated as on that date at 41 Chowringhee Road, Calcutta. According to the company, on the date of service of the Statutory Notice of Demand the registered office was situated at 41 Chownnghee Road whereas the notice was served at A.J.C. Bose Road office. The petitioning creditor in the Affidavit -in -reply denied such allegations and annexed a Xerox copy of the Certificate of Incorporation dated 1st December, 2002 wherein it appears that the registered office of the company was shifted to 8 A.J.C. Bose Road with effect from 1 -12 -2002 and the Statutory Notice of Demand was served on February 7, 2004. It is not the case of the company that the registered office has again been shifted to some other place other than 8 A.J.C. Bose Road, Calcutta for which the winding up petition can be said to be not maintainable. The company also in their Affidavit -in -opposition has contended that those balance confirmations were, in fact, signed by the deponent in blank and those have now been used for the purpose of confirmation. Mr. Debashis Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the company submits that he is instructed not to take the point of non -service of Statutory Notice of Demand at the registered office. He, however, strenuously contends that no reliance should be placed on the balance confirmation as those were highly disputed. According to him, on good faith the deponent signed those confirmations. Mr. Mitra further submits that assuming those amounts were paid on behalf of the petitioner, those were paid to the proprietorship concern and not to the company and as such the company cannot be made liable for the same. From the confirmation of accounts annexed to the petition it appears that the company acknowledged the liability. The petitioning creditor in their Affidavit -in -reply annexed a Bank Statement of the company wherefrom it appears that the concerned payments were made by the petitioner. The company has not been able to deny their liability by raising a bona fide dispute which could resist the order of admission.

(2.) I am fully convinced that the defence taken by the company is nothing but an afterthought. The plea of non -service of Statutory Notice of Demand was taken by the company deliberately to mislead this court knowing fully well that the said averment was totally incorrect. The company has not been able to establish as to why the order of admission should not be passed on the basis of the acknowledgement made by them. I am convinced that the said sum of Rs. 6,51,652 is due and payable by the company to the petitioner.

(3.) The winding up petition is thus admitted for a sum of Rs. 6,51,652 together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on and from September 13, 2001 being the date of acknowledgement until payment.