9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this petition under section 446(2) read with section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") for recovery of Rs. 2,476.02 against the respondents. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner-company was ordered to be wound up by this court vide order dated October 27, 1983, in Company Petition No. 57 of 1983. The official liquidator attached to this court was appointed as offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itled to interest, if so, at what rate? 3.Relief. Issue No. 1: The petitioner examined Lalit Mohan Bareja who was a director of the petitioner-company from its very inception. He proved the ledger entry exhibit P-1. He, in unequivocal terms, stated that the accounts were maintained by the company in the ordinary course of business and that no amount was received from the respondent against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntries reveal that a sum of Rs. 2,476.02 is due from the respondent. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner-company is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,476.02 from the respondent. Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly. Issue No. 2: Sub-section (2) of section 61 of the Sale of Goods Act, reads thus: "(2) In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the court may award interest at such rates as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
