Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2014 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 974 - DELHI HIGH COURTWinding up of company - Inability to pay debts - Bar of limitation - Whether the defence raised by the respondent that the claims of the petitioner are barred by limitation is a bona fide and substantial defence - Held that:- It is well settled that a petition under Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act, 1956, will not lie in respect of a debt which is barred by limitation and cannot be enforced. A debt which is not enforceable cannot be considered as an amount which is due and payable by the respondent. - there was no written acknowledgement that had been furnished by the respondent to the petitioner except a letter dated 29.12.2010 sent by K. Nath “General Manager Group Legal & Company Secretary” on behalf of Ashok Piramal Management Operation Ltd - Said letter cannot be accepted as an acknowledgement by the respondent company for the reasons that, neither the letter purports to be on behalf of the respondent company nor is it signed by an authorized signatory of the respondent company - The fact that the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.12 lakhs during the course of the present proceedings also would not extend limitation in favour of the petitioner. This is so because the said payment has been made after the period of limitation has expired and therefore the provisions of Section 19 of The Limitation Act, 1963, are not applicable - Decided against Appellant.
|