the contract, that is (1) approval of the Reserve Bank of India, (2) realisation in India of the export proceeds in full by the company, and (3) successful completion of the contract. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that those conditions are not fulfilled in this case as there is no permission for a remission of the alleged debt due to the petitioning creditor by way of commission as claimed in the winding-up petition and the statutory notice. Secondly, the contract was not fully performed and, therefore, the export proceeds cannot be said to have been realised in full, and, thirdly, the contract was not completed as part of the goods were not delivered by the company. In my view, the said submissions are not only a desperate attempt on the part of the company trying to confuse the real facts and issue before the court , as, from the documents exchanged between the parties, it appears that the company agreed to pay and remit the amount to the petitioning creditor as the agent through whom the said contract with WAPDA was finally entered into by the company for supply of the goods after obtaining permission from the Reserve Bank of India. It was the duty and it was also incumbent under the law, that is the F.E.R. Act and the Rules made thereunder, for the company to make the necessary application for permission for remitting the said amount to the petitioning creditor. The company cannot take advantage of its own default and set up the said plea of absence of permission of the Reserve Bank of India.
