The respondent company is a Private Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act,1956 was incorporated on 4. 1997 with the following objects:

“(a) To trade in any articles, goods, rights possessions of any nature and of any use being industrial, commercial, household, technical and in such process to buy, sell acquire, lease any merchandise, goods or property of any form whatsoever as authorised dealers, stockists, agents, brokers, factors and render all such services in the ordinary course of business to market the goods in a consumable state.

(b) To carry on the business of importers, exporters, buyers, sellers, dealers, stockists, suppliers, wholesalers, retailers, jobbers, contractors, storers, lessors, hirer of goods of every description and goods, components, sub-components, consumables, peripherals or products or articles involved in the goods and to act as agents for any products or articles involved in the goods and to act as agents for any such articles, goods or any services for Indian or overseas principals.

(c) To carry on, in any mode, the business of storekeepers in all its branches and in particular to buy, sell and deal in goods, stores, consumable articles, chattels and effects of all kinds, both wholesale or retail and to transact every kind of agency business and to carry on the other objects as set out in the Memorandum of Association of the company”.

2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act is a holding company of M/s.HCL Infinet Limited, which entered into a supply agreement dated 4. 2007 with the respondent Company, pursuant to which cellular mobile telephone products were sold and supplied to the respondent Company from time to time. By order of the Delhi High Court, the said HCL Infinet Limited was merged with the petitioner company with effect from 4. 2007. The petitioner Company took over all rights and liabilities of HCL Infinet Ltd. Before the merger, supplies were made to the respondent by HCL Infinet Limited and after merger by the petitioner company. As on 17. 2008, there was an outstanding amount of Rs.11.14 crores due from the respondent in respect of the supplies made.

3. It is stated that the respondent Company promised to reduce the outstanding to 5.2 crores by August 31, 2008 by way of e-mail dated 27. 2008 addressed by the Managing Director of the respondent Mr.R.Subramanian to the Chief Financial Officer of the petitioner Company, acknowledging the liability. There was another e-mail given by the petitioner on 8. 2008 to R.Subramanian, who sent an e-mail on the same day to the petitioner company confirming the outstanding and the arrangement for reducing the outstanding to Rs.5.2 crores by the end of August, 2008. However, by 38. 2008, there was an amount of Rs.9,32,59,205/-due after the issue of credit notes under marketing incentive schemes introduced by the petitioner company. Since the amounts were not paid, supply was stopped by the petitioner and series of exchange of letters were effected. There was an e-mail dated 19. 2008 addressed by Mr.N.Sridhar of respondent company to Mr.Hari Baskaran of the petitioner company in respect to which, by e-mail, the petitioner company pointed out that an amount of Rs.9.32 crores was outstanding for more than 60 days. In the reply, by e-mail dated 19. 2008 addressed to Mr.R.Mahendran of the petitioner company by Mr.R.Subramanian, the respondent company admitted the outstanding of Rs.9.3 crores.

4. It is stated that after series of discussions, it was agreed that the respondent company would give post-dated cheques dated 310. 2008 by 10. 2008 to reduce the outstanding to Rs.5.2 crores by 310. 2008. The said agreement was recorded in writing by Mr.R.Subramanian. The said three cheques issued by the respondent company dated 310. 2008 for Rs.1 crore each were dishonoured by the bankers of the respondent company viz., Standard Chartered Bank with the endorsement insufficient funds. By letter dated 110. 200