MANOJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. NEW HARIYANA TRANSPORT COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BACKDROP:

(2.) His Lordship directed payment of the said sum of Rs.88, 500 together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. His Lordship however, permitted the Company to pay it off by four equal monthly installments. The Company did not pay. They filed an application for recall of the order. In the application for recall, the Company took a new plea. According to them, out of four bills, three bills had already been paid. The total transaction would involve several lacs of rupees and the transporter never raised any grievance with regard to nonpayment. The payments were paid by cheque or RTGS. They give details of payments. With regard to the fourth bill, the Company denied their liability as it was raised on Radha Strips. The Company relied on a no due certificate issued by the transporter being Annexure-F to the said application. The learned Judge heard the application. With regard to the fourth bill, the Company could not deny existence of the letter dated July 11, 2011 sent by the transporter demanding payment. His Lordship dismissed the application. The Company preferred an appeal. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal. While doing so, the Division Bench observed, the order of admission was passed considering the rival contentions hence; there could be no scope for making any application for recall. The document sought to be placed on record were already in control and custody of the Company and could have been annexed in the affidavit. The Division Bench however, observed at the last, "it is however, well-settled that the observations made in the proceedings which were basically inter-locutary do not determine the final result of the proceeding". The matter appeared before the learned Judge again at the post advertisement stage. His Lordship directed affidavits to be exchanged. The learned Judge ultimately passed an order of winding up. From the order of winding up we find, the Company expressed its desire to secure the claim as according to them payments had already been made in full. The learned Judge observed, the defence was not taken in the affidavit-in-opposition at the admission stage. Their application for recall was dismissed. The Division Bench also dismissed the appeal. There was no change to the order of admission hence; such plea could not be accepted.

(3.) The above two appeals would relate to the order of admission and the order of winding up respectively. The Division Bench, while admitting the appeal, directed deposit of the principal amount and stayed the order of winding up upon such deposit being made. We are told, deposits were made, and we heard both the appeals of the above mentioned dates.