TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said facts the present petition has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. - CO.PET. 465/2015 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2018 - MR. JAYANT NATH J. Petitioner Through Mr. Rishi Sood and Mr. Anand M. Mishra, Advs. Respondent Through Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Adv. JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. This petition is filed under Section 433(e), 434(1) (a) 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent company. It is the contention of the petitioner that in April 2010 the respondent company had placed six purchase orders of paper on the petitioner company. The petitioner duly supplied the said products. The petitioner raised its invoices, namely, Bill No.38 dated 23.04.2010, Bill No.51 dated 11.5.2010, bill No.50 dated 11.5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ram Kishore Nagar Mal, 2007 (3) Arb.LR 402 (Delhi) and in the case of Hansa Industries (P) Limited vs. M/s. MMTC Ltd. Anr., 113(2004) DLT 474 to contend that C-Form is not an acknowledgement of his debt and will not accept/exceed territory limitation. 3. I may first look at the facts of the present case. The invoices on the basis of which the present winding up is filed are all of 2010. The winding up petition has been filed in 2015. It appears that the winding up petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation of three years. I may look at the judgment of this court in the case of Professional Audio Video Pte. Ltd. vs. M-3 Media Private Limited (supra) where this court has noted the legal position on limitation as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for winding up can not be allowed to be utilized merely as a means for realizing debts due from a company which is also barred by time. Consequently there are no grounds to initiate the winding up proceedings against the respondent company. The petition, therefore, is without merit is liable to be dismissed. The petition, therefore, is dismissed. 8.Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the Fourseasns Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. The Indure Ltd., Co.A.12/2005, decided on 22.11.2007, where the court held as follows: 13. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the aforesaid claim of the appellant was barred by limitation as the said claim wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. (2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received. Explanation .-For the purposes of this section,- (a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set-off, or is addressed to a person other than a per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to constitute acknowledgment are missing from this document. (also see Hansa Industries (P) Limited v. MMTC Ltd. 2004 VI AD (Del) 222. 32. Thus, the Arbitrator clearly erred in treating 16.1.2000 as the date of commencement of limitation. In view of the provisions contained in The Limitation Act, and the authorities cited, I find no force in the contention of the Respondent that the claim before the Arbitrator was within the period of Limitation. The said 'C' Form does not constitute an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act and the Arbitrator misapplied the law on this aspect as well. 10. This court in Hansa Industries (P) Limited vs. M/s. MMTC Ltd. Anr.(supra) had elaborated the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
