Calcutta High Court
Jainco Projects (India) Limited vs Green Concretex Rmc Material Private ... on 26 August, 2016
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
OD 27 to 30
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CP No. 23 of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
JAINCO PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED
AND
GREEN CONCRETEX RMC MATERIAL PRIVATE LIMITED
AND
CP No. 25 of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
JAINCO PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED
AND
GREEN CONCRETEX GLOBAL LIMITED
AND
CP No. 26 of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
JAINCO PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED
AND
AMBRETTE RMC PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED
AND
CP No. 27 of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
JAINCO PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED
AND
GREEN KALPA HEIGHTS PRIVATE LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date : 26th August, 2016.
Appearance:
Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.
Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Hashnuhana Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. Aradhita Ghosh Mondal, Adv.2
The Court : The parties agree that the facts in all four matters are similar. The company claims that there were two conversion agreements between the company and the petitioner in CP No.25 of 2016. The petitioners claim that there were conversion agreements between the company and the relevant petitioner in all four of the matters. However, nothing much turns on such distinction.
The claim in each case is on account of refund of money lent and advanced. According to the petitioners, the fact that the relevant petitioner had lent and advanced monies to the company has been admitted in the relevant opposition, but the company has asserted repayment. The petitioners say that at least in CP No.25 of 2016, the relevant petitioner is in a position to demonstrate that most of the payments claimed by the company to be part payments on account of the loan were paid in pursuance of the conversion agreements and under specific heads. The petitioner in CP No.25 of 2016 has placed the copy bank statements appended to the opposition and the copy documents appended to the reply to suggest that most of the payments claimed by the company to be in discharge of the loan amount were in respect of electricity payments or under other heads in respect of the conversion agreements.
However, even in CP No.25 of 2016, the petitioner has not been able to deal with all the payments that have been cited by the company to be on account of matters covered by the conversion agreements and not on account of repayment of the admitted loan. The petitioner claims that as long as one or several of the part payments are demonstrated to be on other accounts, the defence would fail and the company should be held to be unable to pay the debt due on account of the money lent and advanced to it.3
The petitioner in CP No.25 of 2016 may be justified to a certain extent; but it would be injudicious to discredit the entirety of the defence on the basis of the copy documents disclosed in the reply. For one, the company has had no chance to deal with the documents relied upon in the reply and explain the contents thereof. Further, the explanation furnished by the company in its opposition even in CP No.25 of 2016 cannot be wished away by picking a few holes therein.
Since the best arguable case of the petitioner in CP No.25 of 2016 would entitle the company to defend the claim in a more protracted action, it cannot be said that any of the petitioners has been able to make out a case of the company being insolvent or being unable to pay its debt without sufficient cause.
CP No.23 of 2016, CP No.25 of 2016, CP No.26 of 2016 and CP No.27 of 2016 are permanently stayed and the petitioners are given liberty to pursue their respective claims in accordance with law before the appropriate civil forum. In the event there is any question of limitation, the relevant petitioner will be entitled to invoke the appropriate provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 before the civil Court since it cannot be said that these petitions were completely without basis.
There will be no order as to costs.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc.