Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.2 The petitioner, evidently, had entered into an equipment services agreement (in short agreement) with the respondent on 10.10.2011. It appears that disputes arose between the parties, which led to exchange of correspondence; culminating with the respondent issuing an e-mail dated 28.11.2012 whereby, the aforementioned agreement was terminated. While terminating the agreement, a 30 days notice was served upon the petitioner.

Furthermore, the petitioner, was also called upon to clear the outstanding debt in the sum of Rs.40,51,242/-, emanating, purportedly, from the aforementioned agreement towards, what is termed as, VPF Sharing Services.

2.4 The petitioner, while giving its response to each of the allegations made in e-mail dated 28.11.2012, also refuted that a sum of Rs.40,51,248/-, as on 31.10.2012, was due and payable by it, towards VPF Sharing Services. 2.5 Evidently, for the next two months, there was no exchange of any correspondence between the parties herein. However, on 08.02.2013, a communication was sent in the form of a letter to the respondent wherein, while reiterating the contents of its earlier communication dated 07.12.2012, the petitioner, in no uncertain terms stated that, a dispute had arisen between them regarding the validity of the termination of the agreement carried out by the respondent.