ITEM NO.2 (PH)            COURT NO.6               SECTION IX

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24772/2007

(From the judgement and order dated 19/07/2007 in  AN No.382/2007  & CP No. 419/2006  of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)

EXPOSURE INSURANCE SERVICES LIMITED                  Petitioner(s)

                     VERSUS

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED                              Respondent(s) (with appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents)   

Date: 21/03/2009  This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH

For Petitioner(s)                       Ms. Praveena Gautam, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv. Mr. Dhruv Kapoor, Adv.    Mr. Sachin Midha,Adv. Mr. Rajneesh Chopra,Adv.

                   Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Adv.     

             UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

This  Special  Leave  Petition  is  directed  against  the  

judgment and order dated 19th July, 2007, passed by the Division Bench  

of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.382/07 arising out of Company  

Petition  No.  419/06,  filed  by  the  petitioner  herein.  Claiming  to  be  a  

Holder in Due Course of two Bills of  Exchange,  both  dated  15th  

-2-

December 2002, the petitioner filed the Company   Petition No.419/06  

for winding up of the respondent Company.  The Bills of Exchange were  

said to have been endorsed in favour of the petitioner on 28th January,  

2003, and the same were payable on 15th March, 2003.  The claim of the  

petitioner is on the strength of the endorsement alleged to have been  

made in its favour  and the petitioner claims thereunder as a Holder in  

Due Course.  Opposing the petition, the respondent Company took the  

defence  that  nothing  was payable  in  respect  of  the  said  two Bills  of  

Exchange on account of two Credit Notes dated 27.2.2003 having been  

issued by the supplier  to the petitioner confirming that goods supplied  

to the respondent had been received back by the supplier at Dubai and  

that, consequently, nothing further was payable on the basis of the said  

Bills of Exchange.  It  also appears  that the Bills of Exchange were not  

presented for a period of two years after the date of maturity and only  

on  4th February,  2005,  Carbon  Technologies  Limited  issued  notice  

demanding payment on the basis thereof.   On reply being sent on 7th  

March  2005,  by  the  respondent  Company,  the  said  notice  was  

withdrawn.   

-3-

Subsequently, a similar notice was issued on 29th March, 2005 on  

behalf  of  a  company  by  the  name  of  Buxley  Industries  Limited.  

Pursuant  to  the similar  reply  being sent  on behalf  of  the respondent  

company, no further proceedings have been taken although the notice

issued has not been withdrawn.  Thereafter, on 13th February, 2006, the  

present petitioner sent a notice to the respondent Company demanding  

payment of the said two Bills of Exchange again indicating that it was  

the Holder in Due Course of the same.

 The defence taken by the respondent company indicates that there was  

a genuine dispute with regard to the claim put forward by the petitioner  

company.   The  said  question  has   been  gone  into  by  the  learned  

Company Judge while dismissing the Winding Up petition by his order  

dated 21st March, 2007.  The same view was expressed by the Division  

Bench  in  Appeal  No.382/2007  arising  out  of  Company  Petition  

No.419/2006.   

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are  

inclined to accept the reasoning of the Division Bench  endorsing the  

judgment of the learned Single Judge, since having regard to the facts,  

we  are also of the view that  

 -4-

this is a matter which is required to be heard and decided in a properly  

constituted suit  on account of  the contentious nature of the objection  

taken  by  the  respondent  on  account  whereof  the  parties  have  been  

relegated to a suit.   

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.  But this will  

not prevent the petitioner company from pursuing its remedy before any  

other forum, in accordance with law.

(Ganga Thakur) PS to Registrar

(Juginder Kaur) Court Master