Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Divya Jyoti Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd vs Crackers India (Alloys) Ltd on 11 December, 2014

Author: Biswanath Somadder

Bench: Biswanath Somadder

ORDER SHEET
                           CP No.947 of 2014
                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                          Original Jurisdiction
                            ORIGINAL SIDE


                                                  IN THE MATTER OF:
                                   DIVYA JYOTI SPONGE IRON PVT. LTD.
                                                                AND
                                       CRACKERS INDIA (ALLOYS) LTD.

 BEFORE:
 The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER

Date: 11th December, 2014 Ms. Aiman Abdullah, Adv.

..for the petitioner Ms. Rima Das, Adv.

..for the company Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application, it appears that the petitioning creditor had issued a statutory notice dated 21st May, 2014, which was duly received by the company but was never replied to.

Now, when the winding up application comes up for consideration before this Court, learned advocate representing the company submits that her client wishes to file an affidavit in order to dispute the consignment notes, which was issued in the year 2012, by the petitioning creditor.

From 2012 till date, there is nothing on record, which will go to show that the company disputed the contents of the consignment 2 notes. The company accepted delivery of the goods from the petitioning creditor in terms of those consignment notes without any demur or protest. The statutory notice dated 21st May, 2014 could have been replied to by the company taking this point. However, the company never chose to do so. As such, there is a clear presumption of acknowledgement of debt by the company and its inability to pay its debt. Seeking direction for filing of affidavit, in such circumstances, is merely a ploy to stall the winding up proceeding. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, such affidavit-in-opposition is not even called for. As such, let this matter stand adjourned till 16th December, 2014 for further orders.

(BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.) AKGoswami