[ad_1]
Justice Liu Yupan of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favour of SMS Pariaz Ltd, which had filed an application to quash the statutory application filed by MTC Sports & Leisure Ltd (in liquidation) on July 26, 2022. The petition concerned an amount of Rs 3,594,374 for the 2nd, 5th, 7th and 8th horse races of the 2022 season, which, according to SMS Pariaz Ltd, was not due and payable as per the terms invoked by the creditor. Justice Liu Yupan concluded that the debt was not “Definite, fluid, and manageable”.
For the 2021 season, SMS Pariaz Ltd agreed to pay 7% of its turnover per race, which includes a 4.5% tax and a 2.5% surcharge imposed by the Gambling Regulatory Authority. This contribution is intended to cover the use of the MTC race card and fixtures. However, SMS Pariaz Ltd found that other accumulators were not subject to the same 2.5% surcharge and only had to pay 4.5%.
SMS Pariaz Ltd claims to have paid Rs 96,860,048.57 for the 2021 season, while it should have paid only Rs 62,267,174.08, equivalent to 4.5% of its turnover. According to SMS Pariaz, this situation resulted in an overpayment of Rs 34,592,874.49. Therefore, the company asked MTC to repay this excess and terminate the agreement.
lost files
The main ground for SMS Pariaz Ltd to withdraw its statutory plea was that the amount claimed for the 2022 season should be compensated by the amount wrongfully received for the 2021 season and therefore SMS Pariaz Ltd sought compensation for races 2, 5, 7 and 8. These were Rs 991,818, Rs 1,118,829, Rs 735,254 and Rs 751,147 respectively.
MTC disputed these arguments, denying the existence of an agreement under which all accumulators had to pay 7% of their turnover. MTC also rejected the request for refund, saying that SMS Pariaz Ltd’s request had no reasonable basis.
After reviewing the evidence and arguments of both parties, the court held that the dispute was of substance and not a mere assertion. He admitted that it was necessary to hear the testimony of witnesses and produce evidence to determine whether there was indeed an agreement to pay 7% and whether other accumulators were required to pay the same.
Judge Liu Yupan also noted that the nature of the dispute and the lack of documentation evidencing such an agreement required further evaluation. It was decided that this issue should be decided by the competent court and not at this stage of the proceedings. MTC’s statutory request was therefore dismissed.
[ad_2]
Source link
