Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2010 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 897 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTAWhether a period of 21 days, which is the time contemplated by section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, should be added to such date, i.e. June 19, 2006 and limitation should be reckoned after a period of three years therefrom? Held that:- It is evident from paragraph 12 of the petition that the petitioner was aware that the claim could no longer be enforced since a period of more than three years had elapsed from the date of the last admitted payment. The petitioner then thought up a date and included it in paragraph 12 of the petition though there is no mention of a payment having been made in July, 2007 in the statutory notice issued in January, 2009. The statement of accounts appended to the petition at pages 18 to 20 also does not reveal that any payment had been made by the company to the petitioner during the financial year 2007-08. For a petitioning creditor to approach this equitable jurisdiction, the person must come with clean hands and utmost candour. Irrespective of whether the petitioner can avail of section 15(2) of the Limitation Act, which appears to be inapplicable to the present case, since it is evident that the relevant averment by the petitioner at paragraph 12 of the petition is contrary to the statements in the statutory notice where the petitioner had categorically stated that the last payment had been made by the company to the petitioner on June 19, 2006, C. P. No. 299 of 2009 is permanently stayed. The petitioner may avail of any other remedy that may be available to the petitioner in respect of the subject-matter of the claim herein.
|