Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 02, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1061175

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1061175
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Sanjib Banerjee
Decided On: Jan 02, 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Excerpt

.....issued to it by the company against value received and that such cheques were dishonoured upon presentation. the company responded by claiming that the management in the company had been changed and that there were no records in the company’s books relating to the petitioner’s claim. the company also suggested that an amount in excess of rs.38 lakh had been paid by the company to the petitioner but the management of the company was not aware of the further claim. for a petitioner to succeed on a creditor’s winding-up petition, the claim has to be affirmatively established. in the instant case there are no primary documents that the petitioner can rely on and the petitioner relies on supplemental documents, the veracity whereof has been questioned by the company. the petitioner has not been able to make out a clear claim to entitle the petitioner to an order of admission. c.p.no.123 of 2008 is permanently stayed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the claim before the appropriate forum. there will be no order as to costs. 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.

Full Judgment

CP No.123 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction In the matter of :THE BENGAL DOOARS NATIONAL TEA Co.LTD.And SANJAY BANSAL Appearance Mr.K.C.Garg, Advocate Ms.Manju Bhuteria, Advocate BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :

2. d January, 2012.

The Court : The claim is on account of money lent and advanced.

The petitioning creditor claims that the petitioning creditor had advanced money in cash to the company as and when it required it and the company apparently agreed to refund the amount together with interest.

The petitioner cannot show any primary documents in support of the transactions.

In any event, the payments, according to the petitioner, were made in cash.

The petitioner relies on a purported balance confirmation document executed on behalf of the company.

The petitioner also says that cheques of total value in excess of Rs.48 lakh were made over by the company to the petitioner and upon the dishonour of such cheques, there arose a statutory presumption which the company has not been able to rebut.

A statutory notice was issued by the petitioner to which there was a teRs.reply from the company.

The petitioner claimed in the statutory notice that cheques had been issued to it by the company against value received and that such cheques were dishonoured upon presentation.

The company responded by claiming that the management in the company had been changed and that there were no records in the company’s books relating to the petitioner’s claim.

The company also suggested that an amount in excess of Rs.38 lakh had been paid by the company to the petitioner but the management of the company was not aware of the further claim.

For a petitioner to succeed on a creditor’s winding-up petition, the claim has to be affirmatively established.

In the instant case there are no primary documents that the petitioner can rely on and the petitioner relies on supplemental documents, the veracity whereof has been questioned by the company.

The petitioner has not been able to make out a clear claim to entitle the petitioner to an order of admission.

C.P.No.123 of 2008 is permanently stayed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the claim before the appropriate forum.

There will be no order as to costs.

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.

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2012 Same Parties Appellant vs Respondent Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Sanjib Banerjee