Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 24, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1119574

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/1119574
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Nadira Patherya
Decided On: Jan 24, 2014
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Excerpt

.....filing affidavits and such affidavit has been affirmed on behalf of the company on 4th july, 2013 by one mr.amitava maulik. from the said affidavit filed, the only defence which emerges is in respect of a software supplied by oracle india private limited whose assignee is the petitioning creditor. according to the company the software supplied by oracle india private limited was not in utilizable condition. therefore, payment is not required to be made. the said defence taken cannot be accepted as no communication has been annexed by the company to the affidavit filed by it disputing the supply. this finds mention for the firs.time in the affidavit filed. in fact, the order dated 13th february, 2013 was passed in presence of the advocate for the company when no defence was indicated. therefore, the defence which has been taken in paragraph 9 of the affidavit of mr.maulik is no defence in the absence of documentary evidence. in fact, no appeal has been filed from the order dated 13th february, 2013 and there exists no reason to either vary or modify the said order. accordingly, non-payment of sums mentioned in the order dated 13th february, 2013 and inability on behalf of the company to liquidate the sum warrants an order of winding up. let the company be wound up forthwith and the official liquidator is directed to take possession of all the assets and properties of the company including all the books, records and documents. official liquidator and all parties to act on a photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings. ( patherya, j.) pa

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET CP No.338 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction IN THE MATTER OF : CONNECTIVA SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.AND SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PVT.LTD.(SEFPL) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 24th January, 2014.

Ms.Manju Bhuteria for the petitioning creditor.

Mr.Dipanjan Sinha Roy for the company.

The Court : This application for winding up has appeared post advertisement.

Directions were given for filing affidavits and such affidavit has been affirmed on behalf of the company on 4th July, 2013 by one Mr.Amitava Maulik.

From the said affidavit filed, the only defence which emerges is in respect of a software supplied by Oracle India Private Limited whose assignee is the petitioning creditor.

According to the company the software supplied by Oracle India Private Limited was not in utilizable condition.

Therefore, payment is not required to be made.

The said defence taken cannot be accepted as no communication has been annexed by the company to the affidavit filed by it disputing the supply.

This finds mention for the fiRs.time in the affidavit filed.

In fact, the order dated 13th February, 2013 was passed in presence of the Advocate for the company when no defence was indicated.

Therefore, the defence which has been taken in paragraph 9 of the affidavit of Mr.Maulik is no defence in the absence of documentary evidence.

In fact, no appeal has been filed from the order dated 13th February, 2013 and there exists no reason to either vary or modify the said order.

Accordingly, non-payment of sums mentioned in the order dated 13th February, 2013 and inability on behalf of the company to liquidate the sum warrants an order of winding up.

Let the company be wound up forthwith and the Official Liquidator is directed to take possession of all the assets and properties of the company including all the books, records and documents.

Official Liquidator and all parties to act on a photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.

( PATHERYA, J.) pa

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