Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment ... vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994
24.The learned counsel for the appellant has harped upon on the fact that there is some discrepancies in the letter dated 7th December, 1996 as compared to the subsequent invoices, which have not been explained. However, as observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1971 SC 2600, if the dispute is relating to the exact amount payable, still it can be said that there is a debt outstanding. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in 1994 (3) SCC 348 Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corpn. of U.P. v. North India Petrochemicals Ltd. and contended that the term "debts" means that an ascertained sum payable. The petitioner has quantified the amount which is payable. The claim is not relating to any un-liquidated damages. The admitted correspondence clearly indicate that for the consultancy service rendered from January to October 1996 the amount was outstanding. The petitioner was repeatedly asking about the payment of such amount but the appellant company has maintained a sphinx like silence. In such a background, the ratio of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant company is not applicable to the peculiar facts of the present case.