Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.

The above three appeals would relate to a claim made by the three respondents being in the common management, as against the company above named. The company was engaged in publishing news daily by the name of “Statesman” which had his age old repute and glory that was decaying resulting in acute financial stringency. Newsprint suppliers were reluctant to continue supply as their outstanding mounted up. The company approached the respondents for financial accommodation. The respondents were also in the business of trading of newsprint. They agreed to supply newsprint by procuring from the market. Instead of direct supply from the paper mills the supply was routed through the respondents inter alia on the following terms :-

i) The respondents would procure newsprint from the market and in turn would supply to the company that would be on forty five days credit.

ii) The respondents would charge one per cent service charges and/or commission over and above the price of the newsprint.

iii) The respondents would have reimbursement of the actual bank interest that the respondents might have to pay to their banker in case the payments got delayed.

Initially supply continued. However, the company could not clear off the dues within the time stipulated. Amount staggered resulting in huge outstanding to the tune of crores. The company by its letter dated June 11, 2009 acknowledged a sum of Rs.3,18,34,478/-due as on April 30, 2009 in case of C.P. No.78 of 2010 arising out of APO No.76 of 2012. Similar acknowledgements were made in other two cases. There had been subsequent acknowledgements. The respondents also gave rebate in case of APO No.76 of 2012 to the extent of Rs.34.5 lacs provided the company would pay the outstanding at an early date. However, such thing did not materialize resulting in filing of the three winding up petitions filed by the same group. The claim made in the winding up petitions were as follows :

30, 2009. The respondents claimed further interest on the overdue amount. The learned single Judge heard the winding up petitions and disposed of the said petitions by three judgment and orders admitting the winding up petitions. Although the amounts, for which the winding up petitions were admitted, varied the reasoning given by His Lordship were identical. Hence, we intend to deal with all the three appeals by this common judgment.

If we go by the judgment and orders impugned, we find, the company raised a plea before His Lordship, the amount became disputed as the company later on came to know, respondents overcharged by raising inflated invoices and as such they became entitled to appropriate rebate not only in case of pending invoices but also in respect of bills and/or invoices already cleared by the company. Company in fact filed a suit inter alia claiming for damage in view of such fraudulent activity of the respondents.

His Lordship rejected such contention mainly relying on the balance confirmations that were referred to above. Before His Lordship, the learned senior counsel appearing for the company offered to pay a sum of Rs.6.05 crores in full and final settlement of the claim of the respondents by easy instalment. They were however not agreeable to pay any further interest on the said sum. Hence, such offer could not be accepted. His Lordship directed payment of the sums for which the winding up petitions were admitted together with interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum being the banking rate together with additional two per cent of penal interest that the respondents would be obliged to pay its banker. The learned Judge also directed payment of one per cent service charge. Being aggrieved the company preferred the above appeals that were heard on the above mentioned dates.

When we initially heard the matter we felt it prudent to give further opportunity to the company to find out ways and means to clear off their admitted liability. Such feeling was a result o