Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2016 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 919 - HC - Companies LawWinding up Petition - time barred petition - Held that:- Find considerable force that the claim made in the present Petition, Prima facie would appear to be barred by the law of limitation. It is not in dispute that the supplies of these machineries took place between the period of 10th June, 2008 to 25th February, 2009. Even, if where to go by the credit period mentioned in the third purchase order (being a period of 730 days), the Respondent Company was required to make payment by 24th February, 2011. The period of limitation of 3 years would start from this date. Admittedly, the present Company Petition has been lodged on 31st July, 2014. This would clearly be beyond the period of 3 years and, therefore, the claim on the face of it would appear to be time barred. Respondent Company has done an internal audit which would reflect that even under the third purchase order, as many as 37 machines were not working. It is also the case of the Respondent – Company, that there was a serious delay in supplying the machines, which has caused great loss to the Respondent Company by virtue of the fact that they lost the security deposit on premises that they had taken on leave and licence in which these machines where to be housed. Looking to all these factors, I do not think, that this is a case where the debt of the Petitioner is undisputed. To my mind, there is a bonafide dispute raised by the Respondent – Company. In these circumstances, thus have no hesitation in dismissing this Company Petition.
|