Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 13, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1118695

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/1118695
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Nadira Patherya
Decided On: Jan 13, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Excerpt

.....wherefrom it appears that a sentence written in ink at the top of the said document does not find mention in the same document annexed to the petition. therefore, the genuineness of the document annexed to the petition is in doubt. that the said document is of importance goes without saying as the said has been relied on by the petitioning creditor. as a bona fide defence has been raised by the company and various questions need to be answered, no order can be passed for winding up or directing the company to make payment to the petitioning creditor and accordingly this application is dismissed. this, however, will not prevent the petitioning creditor from taking steps in accordance with law. as the company has raised a counter-claim and if the same be genuine, let steps be taken by the company to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum within the period of limitation. in default, the petitioning creditor will be at liberty to seek reliefs as sought in this company petition or seek revival of c.p.no.229 of 2013. all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings. ( patherya, j.) sb.

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET CP NO.229 OF 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction R.M.PACKAGING (P) LTD.AND NAVANA PRINTING WORKS (P) LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 13th January, 2014.

APPEARANCE: MR.A.C.KAR,ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONING CREDITOR MR.AMBARISH MAZUMDER, MR.DEBANIK BANERJEE, MR.B.K.SEN,ADVOCATE FOR COMPANY The Court : This application has been filed under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for realisation of sums due and payable by the company to the petitioning creditor.

In the reply given to the statutory notice dated 30th April, 2012 a case has been made out for loss and damage suffered by the company.

In the petition a document dated 13th July, 2011 has been relied upon.

The original has been produced in court this day, a copy whereof has also been annexed to the affidavit filed by Asitava Chackerbutty on 6th June, 2013 on behalf of the company wherefrom it appears that a sentence written in ink at the top of the said document does not find mention in the same document annexed to the petition.

Therefore, the genuineness of the document annexed to the petition is in doubt.

That the said document is of importance goes without saying as the said has been relied on by the petitioning creditor.

As a bona fide defence has been raised by the company and various questions need to be answered, no order can be passed for winding up or directing the company to make payment to the petitioning creditor and accordingly this application is dismissed.

This, however, will not prevent the petitioning creditor from taking steps in accordance with law.

As the company has raised a counter-claim and if the same be genuine, let steps be taken by the company to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum within the period of limitation.

In default, the petitioning creditor will be at liberty to seek reliefs as sought in this company petition or seek revival of C.P.No.229 of 2013.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.

( PATHERYA, J.) sb.

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2014 Same Parties Appellant vs Respondent Same Subject Education Same Judge Nadira Patherya