Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Nov 30, 2012
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1061001

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Excerpt

.....but did not respond thereto. the company has used an affidavit. it is the company’s stand that the principal person in control of the petitioner introduced herself to the cultural works conducted by the company and, in cours.of time, obtained an order for supply of garments to the company for use for a specific purpose. it is also the company’s case on affidavit that the garments were unsuitable for the purpose and were otherwise improperly stitched and ill-fitting. as to why the garments were not befitting the purpose is not indicated in the affidavit. the company claims that it rejected the goods and that the petitioner was immediately made known of the company’s rejection of the goods. however, there is no evidence in support of such assertion that the company has been able to carry. the company does not rely on any document by which it had made a claim on the petitioner or any document by which the company had rejected the goods supplied by the petitioner. though the company has sought to question the confirmation of the accounts on the ground that the person who executed the document did not have any authority to bind the company to the confirmation, it does not appear that the company has any defence to the claim as the company admits to have received the goods and consumed the same without making the entire payment due on such account. cp no.183 of 2012 is admitted for the principal sum of rs.4,14,600/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from february 29, 2012, which is the date of the second statutory notice. if the company pays off the entire sum, inclusive of interest and costs assessed at 1200 gm, within a fortnight from date, the petition will remain permanently stayed. in default, the petition will be advertised once in the statesman and once in bartaman. the advertisements should indicate that the matter will appear before court on the firs.available working day after the expiry of four weeks from the date of the publications.....

Full Judgment

CP No.183 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF: INDO OCCIDENTAL SYMBIOSIS PVT.LTD.AND DARSHAN MEKANI BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :

30. h November, 2012.

Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Adv.Mr.A.K.Hazra, Adv.The Court : The company has no defence to the claim of the petitioning creditor on account of price of goods sold and delivered.

The petitioner supplied garments to the company.

The bills raised by the petitioner appear to have been received by the company and there is no dispute as to the supply having been affected.

The petitioner has also relied on a written confirmation of accounts which appears to have been signed on behalf of the company.

The petitioner issued a statutory notice on February 17, 2012 claiming a sum of Rs.4,14,600/- on account of the balance principal since a sum of Rs.2 lakh had been paid by the company to the petitioner against the bills of a total value of Rs.6,14,600/-.

Despite due receipt of the statutory notice, the company did not reply thereto.

The statutory notice appears to have been sent all over again to the company on February 29, 2012.

Again the company received the statutory notice at its registered office but did not respond thereto.

The company has used an affidavit.

It is the company’s stand that the principal person in control of the petitioner introduced herself to the cultural works conducted by the company and, in couRs.of time, obtained an order for supply of garments to the company for use for a specific purpose.

It is also the company’s case on affidavit that the garments were unsuitable for the purpose and were otherwise improperly stitched and ill-fitting.

As to why the garments were not befitting the purpose is not indicated in the affidavit.

The company claims that it rejected the goods and that the petitioner was immediately made known of the company’s rejection of the goods.

However, there is no evidence in support of such assertion that the company has been able to carry.

The company does not rely on any document by which it had made a claim on the petitioner or any document by which the company had rejected the goods supplied by the petitioner.

Though the company has sought to question the confirmation of the accounts on the ground that the person who executed the document did not have any authority to bind the company to the confirmation, it does not appear that the company has any defence to the claim as the company admits to have received the goods and consumed the same without making the entire payment due on such account.

CP No.183 of 2012 is admitted for the principal sum of Rs.4,14,600/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from February 29, 2012, which is the date of the second statutory notice.

If the company pays off the entire sum, inclusive of interest and costs assessed at 1200 GM, within a fortnight from date, the petition will remain permanently stayed.

In default, the petition will be advertised once in The Statesman and once in Bartaman.

The advertisements should indicate that the matter will appear before Court on the fiRs.available working day after the expiry of four weeks from the date of the publications being made.

Publication in the Official Gazette will stand dispensed with.

Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) sg.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial