In paragraphs 5 and 6 of his affidavit, Shri Katudia referred to order dated 13.4.2006 passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No.910/2005 and averred that a sum of Rs.11,00,000/ was deposited by the appellant on 8.6.2006.
The appellate Courts going into the documentary evidence, if such evidence have been found on record before the trial Court and that too without following the procedure prescribed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does number arise at all.
The learned Company Judge passed order dated 13.4.2006 and directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.11,00,000/ to avoid advertisement of the petition filed by the respondent.
After some time, the respondent filed a petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, which came to be registered as Company Petition No.910/2005 for winding up of the appellant by alleging that it has failed to pay Rs.19,69,417.11 despite demand.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge passed order dated 7.11.2006 and decreed the suit in terms of clauses a and b of the plaint.
In paragraph 7, he averred that Shri Pradeep Bhandekar, who was working as Executive Assistant to the Chairman had resigned in September, 2006 and on that companynt, proper instructions companyld number be given to Shri A.Shaikh, Advocate.
The respondent also filed a Summary Suit No.1989/2006 under Order XXXVII for passing a decree of Rs.25,83,078.35 with interest at the rate of 30 per annum from the date of suit.
Soon thereafter, the appellant filed application dated 18.12.2006 in the form of an affidavit of its Company Secretary Shri Mahesh Katudia and prayed for setting aside decree dated 7.11.2006.
The appellant and respondent entered into an agreement whereby the respondent provided 54 mobile phone companynections to the former in 2003.
Due to number payment of the amount due, the respondent sent legal numberice dated 22.9.2004 and demanded Rs.13,31,800.59.
