GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (3) TMI 1153 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2015 (3) TMI 1153 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - TMI - Winding up petition - unable to pay the admitted debt - period of limitation - Held that:- The present petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground that debt sought to be enforced is time barred besides not being admitted. The undisputed case of the petitioner company is that transaction took place way back in the year 1998. The debit note was issued by the respondent company on account of supply of raw material for manufacture of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ompany or at the most when the account was settled with the respondent company. As is claimed, the petitioner company filed application before the BIFR, which was registered as case No. 348/1998. It was declared sick vide order dated 14.5.1999. Pendency of an application filed by the petitioner company before the BIFR does not mean that it could not proceed against its debtors in the Court of law within the period of limitation to enforce any debt. To cover the period of limitation, reference is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as issued on 31.3.1999 for ₹ 1,72,88,254/- for the raw material supplied by the respondent company. The same cannot be said to be the amount to be recovered from the respondent company as the raw material was admittedly supplied. It is not even the pleaded case of the petitioner company that either raw material was returned back or the drugs manufactured therefrom were supplied to the respondent company. - CP No. 30 of 2011 (O&M) - Dated:- 9-3-2015 - MR. RAJESH BINDAL, J. For The Petitione .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

export by the respondent company. Raw material was to be imported by the respondent company as per the terms of agreement. Raw material purchased by the respondent company and supplied to the petitioner was to be debited in the account of the petitioner, whereas value of the manufactured medicines supplied by the petitioner were to be credited. On 5.8.1998, the petitioner received a consignment of raw material containing Penicillin-G consisting of 30,000 BOU amounting to ₹ 1,72,88,254/-.T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l when the quality thereof was intimated, the respondent company vide letter dated 19.5.1999 informed the petitioner company that it has made a claim with the insurance company and any benefit received after settlement will be passed on to the petitioner company, whereas the petitioner company had nothing to do as the import was made by the respondent company. Ultimately the insurance claim was declined. Statutory notice dated 3.10.2009 was got issued to the respondent company, which was replied .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pany shall take immediate steps for recovery of the dues of ₹ 1,72,00,000/- from the respondent company. The petition was filed immediately thereafter. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent company submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed as the claim sought to be made is highly belated. A time barred debt cannot be used to arm twist the respondent company under the threat of winding up. The issue was pertaining to the year 1998. The petition was filed a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es Limited decided on 27.8.2014. The respondent company used to supply raw material to the petitioner company, which was doing job work of manufacturing medicines. The value of the raw material was being debited in its account. In the process of those transactions, a sum of ₹ 1,72,88,254/- dated 31.3.1999 was debited in the account of the petitioner company on account of supply of raw material. The petitioner company has not produced the copy of the account along with the petition to show .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not in any way suggest that there was a direction for filing of the winding up petition. It was merely a statement made by counsel for the petitioner company there. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. In my opinion, the present petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground that debt sought to be enforced is time barred besides not being admitted. The undisputed case of the petitioner company is that transaction took place way back in the year 1998. The debit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version