Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Supriya Pharmaceuticals Limited Versus M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited

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

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 drugs on job work basis. It is claimed by the petitioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 sought to be made to the order dated 25.3.2009 passed by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aw 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 Petitioner : Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate, For The Respondent : Mr. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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/-.The amount was debited in the account of the petitioner by .....

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 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 to by taking false plea that in fact the respondent compa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f ₹ 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 about 13 years thereafter in the year 2011. He further subm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 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 as to what was the balance due in the account. It is not 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

ng 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 note was issued by the respondent company on account of su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version