Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 19, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1128126

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/1128126
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Nadira Patherya
Decided On: Feb 19, 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

order sheet cp no.436 of 2013 in the high court at calcutta original jurisdiction original side in the matter of : re: m/s.brand wagon (media) pvt.ltd.and nirmal daga before: the hon'ble justice patherya date : 19th february, 2014. mr.kuldip mallick, mr.d.tiwari,advocates for petitioning creditor mr.sudip deb, mr.k.a.bhadhuri,advocates for company the court : this winding up application has been filed for price of goods sold and delivered. the work order was issued on 2nd june, 2011 by the company to the petitioning creditor. it involved printing and installation of sun packs and one of the terms and conditions of the work order was that after installation of sun packs, the same would be validated by the officials of the company and within sixty days from the date of installation payments would be made. the work was not found to be satisfactory and an e-mail in this regard was sent by the principal camellia group to the company on 20th june, 2011. this e-mail was forwarded by the company to the petitioning creditor herein. in spite of receipt of the said e-mail and having gone through the complaint therein no reply has been made by the petitioning creditor. in fact, the subject matter of the e-mail was in respect of poor quality of work done by the petitioning creditor. this was in 2011 and the notice under section 434 has been issued in may 2013 to which a reply has also been given. it is not for the firs.time that the petitioning creditor has been made aware of the poor quality of work executed by it which was not acceptable. this had been informed to it in 2011 itself. as a bona fide defence has been raised by the company, this application merits no order and is, accordingly, dismissed. this, however, will not prevent the petitioning creditor from taking steps in an appropriate forum in accordance with law. 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.436 OF 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : RE: M/S.BRAND WAGON (MEDIA) PVT.LTD.AND NIRMAL DAGA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 19th February, 2014.

MR.KULDIP MALLICK, MR.D.TIWARI,ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONING CREDITOR MR.SUDIP DEB, MR.K.A.BHADHURI,ADVOCATES FOR COMPANY The Court : This winding up application has been filed for price of goods sold and delivered.

The work order was issued on 2nd June, 2011 by the company to the petitioning creditor.

It involved printing and installation of sun packs and one of the terms and conditions of the work order was that after installation of sun packs, the same would be validated by the officials of the company and within sixty days from the date of installation payments would be made.

The work was not found to be satisfactory and an e-mail in this regard was sent by the principal Camellia Group to the company on 20th June, 2011.

This e-mail was forwarded by the company to the petitioning creditor herein.

In spite of receipt of the said e-mail and having gone through the complaint therein no reply has been made by the petitioning creditor.

In fact, the subject matter of the e-mail was in respect of poor quality of work done by the petitioning creditor.

This was in 2011 and the notice under section 434 has been issued in May 2013 to which a reply has also been given.

It is not for the fiRs.time that the petitioning creditor has been made aware of the poor quality of work executed by it which was not acceptable.

This had been informed to it in 2011 itself.

As a bona fide defence has been raised by the company, this application merits no order and is, accordingly, dismissed.

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

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