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

Shree Sanyeeji Sponge And Alloys Ltd vs Parmeshwar Lal Saraf on 3 July, 2014

Author: Patherya

Bench: Patherya

                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
                            ORIGINAL SIDE

                          CP 641 OF 2013
     IN THE MATTER OF : SHREE SANYEEJI SPONGE AND ALLOYS LTD.

                                   Versus

               IN THE MATTER OF : PARMESHWAR LAL SARAF


    BEFORE:

    The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA

    Date : 3rd July, 2014.



                             Mr.K.C.Garg, Advocate
                                             ....for petitioner
                             Mr.M.S.Tiwari, Advocate
                             Mr. R.Tiwari, Advocate
                                             ....for company
            The Court :-In this application the claim arises on

account of price of goods sold and delivered.

            The case of the petitioning creditor is that goods were

supplied to the company against orders placed, received and bills

raised. As no payment was made statutory notice was issued on

7.7.2013

. Statutory notice has returned with the endorsement 'unclaimed'. No reply has been given to the statutory notice. As the goods have been received by the company, consumed by it and no objection raised in respect thereof entitles the company petition to be admitted.

2

Counsel for the company submits that the question of not claiming the statutory notice does not arise in fact no statutory notice has been served on the company. No delivery was effected, nor bill received. Therefore, the question of making any payment does not arise and this application merits no order.

Having considered the submissions of he parties from the delivery challans it appears that goods were either delivered by 'Tempo' or to the person of the company or by bullet bus. The goods which were delivered by 'Tempo' has the remark 'Received O.K.'. But it is not known who received the said goods on behalf of the company. Similarly another delivery challan mentions that the goods have been delivered on 'Bullet Bus'. The number of the 'Bus' so also the 'Tempo' finds no mention in the delivery challan. Nonetheless in spite of no number being mentioned of the 'Bullet Bus' a signature has been appended. Whose signature it is, is not known. The seal of the company also cannot be found on the said delivery challan.

The next set of delivery challans bears the remark 'goods delivered to your person'. Who the person is, is not known and although a signature appears at the bottom of the delivery challan but no seal of the company can be found on the said delivery challan. Therefore, all in all the seal of the company is absent from each of the delivery challan and in the absence of the seal of the company and the delivery of goods by the petitioning 3 creditor to the company in doubt, the bills raised will be irrelevant. In fact there is no evidence to show that the bills raised have been received by the company. In the absence of delivery and receipt of bills no order can be passed on this application and accordingly this application fails and is dismissed.

Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(PATHERYA, J.) GH.