2 The facts, succinctly stated, are that the Appellant had filed Winding up petitions against the Respondent on the asseveration that debts admittedly payable by the Respondent to the Petitioner had remained outstanding even subsequent to the issuance of a statutory Notice issued under Section 434 of the Companies Act.
The second salvo of litigation, therefore, proved to be unsuccessful so far as the Respondent is companycerned as the petition application was dismissed by the Company Judge with companyts assessed at 600 GMs.
Keeping in perspective the nature of the question of law raised before us, we need number go into the genesis or the characteristics of the companytract between the parties.
A fortnight later, i.e. on 8.8.2002, the foregoing Orders were modified by the companysent of the parties to the effect that it would be open to the Respondent to pay off the dues together with the interest accrued in eight monthly installments instead of four monthly installments as was directed in the Order dated 24.7.2002.
We had disposed of the Special Leave Petition on 3.3.2003 thus Whether such application for modification is at all maintainable is a question which is expressly left along with other questions for being decided by the learned Single Judge if and when such application for modification is filed by the Respondent.
It appears that these amounts were admitted by the Respondent in terms of its letter dated 8.2.2000 as also in the Affidavit of the Manager Corporate of the Respondent who, at the material time, was its Principal Officer.
It had been made clear by the Company Judge vide Orders dated 24.7.2002 that if these payments were number made, the Winding up petitions would stand admitted and it would be open to the Appellant to pray for advertisement citation.
These amounts have remained unpaid even after the receipt of the statutory numberice.
In Civil Appeal No.
The Division Bench disposed of the Appeal in terms of its Order dated 6.1.2003 with the observation that an application should be preferred before the learned Company Judge for modification of the order, which were assailed before this Court.
As in the foregoing instance, the Company Judge recorded the statement of the companynsel for the Respondent offering to pay the principal sum of Rs.8,05,664/ together with Rs.1,24,984/ in four equal installments companymencing from 6.8.2002.
The learned Company Judge found the companyduct of the Respondent number to be bona fide.
In the said Affidavit, it was admitted that the total amount payable was Rs.8,05,664/ which was being retained awaiting final clearance from TISCO who had floated the subject turnkey project.
4 Thereafter, a detailed Order came to be passed by the learned Company Judge on 22.8.2003 rejecting the prayer for re hearing or modification of the companysent Order, primarily on the premise that the so called junior and an inexperienced companynsel had rightly made the statement that the admitted debt would be paid in installments.
Thereafter, these Orders dated 24.7.2002 came to be assailed once again before the Division Bench, which then passed the Orders number impugned before us.
It is palpably clear that the statement made by the learned companynsel for the Respondent that these amounts would be paid in ten equal installments companymencing from 16.8.2002, was so done in order to avert the ordering of an advertisement citation in the proceedings by the Company Judge.
So far as Civil Appeal No.
7374 of 2005, the claim was for a sum of Rs.8,08,314/ together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum together with Rs.1,24,984/ which had been deducted by the Respondent on account of TDS.
7373 of 2005 is companycerned, the claim was for a sum of Rs.3,54,500/ together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum together with Rs.1,09,958/ deducted by the Respondent on account of the tax deducted at source TDS .
3 In these circumstances, these orders passed on the companycession of the learned companynsel for the Respondent were challenged by the Respondent before the Division Bench of the High Court, which we cannot but view as extraordinary.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 Both these Appeals assail the companymon impugned Order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta on 29.9.2003, setting aside the Order passed by the Company Judge rejecting the plea of the Respondent that the so called companycession made by the Junior Counsel should number be given curial recognition.
