TMI Blog1958 (2) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant alleged that he was one of the creditors of the company which used to borrow money, from him for about 35 years past. He claimed to have acted as Banker of the company and the sums borrowed from him were entered in the account books of the company in two khatas, one known as current account or chalu khata and the other described as ,,fixed deposit khata . An account used to be made up at the end of' every year and the amount found due at the foot of the account was entered in the balance-sheet of the company which was adopted at the Annual General Meeting of the company. Deposit receipts also used to be passed for the amounts standing in the fixed deposit khata from time to time and at the end of the year ending July 1939, a sum of ₹ 79,519-12-9 was found due by the company to him on both these accounts. On January 15, 1940, the company passed a deposit receipt in his favour for this amount which he demanded from the company by his letters dated May 10, 1941 and May 17, 1941. The company failed and neglected to pay the said amount with the result that he filed on June 16,1944, a suit against the company for recovery of a sum of ₹ 1,03,988 made up of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced a deposit of ₹ 79,519-12-9 for 12 months from August 1, 1939, to July 31, 1940, and the amount at the foot thereof became due and payable by the respondent to him on July 31, 1940. The appellant, however, sought to extend the commencement of the period of limitation to May 17, 1941, on the ground that the monies, the subject-matter of that deposit receipt, were payable to him on demand, that such demand was made by him on May 17, 1941, and that therefore that was the date for the commencement of the period of limitation. No express agreement in this behalf could be proved by him nor could an agreement be implied from the course of dealings between him and the company for the period of 25 years during which the dealings continued between the parties. As a matter of fact, such an agreement, either express or implied, was negatived by the very terms of the deposit receipt which, apart from mentioning that the monies were received by the company as deposit for 12 months from August 1, 1939, to July 31, 1940, contained on the reverse a note that interest would cease on due date. This was sufficient to establish that the amount due at the foot of the deposit receipt became due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nowledgment of a subsisting liability in regard to the debt due by the company to him at the foot of the deposit receipt in question'. We do not see how it could ever be spelt out as such acknowledgment. The contents of the resolution only referred to a past liability of the company to the appellant and there was nothing therein which could by any stretch be construed as referring to the liability of the company, to him at the foot of the deposit receipt dated January 15, 1940. Our attention was drawn to the deposit receipts which had been passed by the company in favour of the appellant on May 30, 1935, October 18, 1936, and November 30,1938, each of which was for a sum of ₹ 47,500. No connection was, however, established between the sum of ₹ 47,500, the subject-matter of these receipts, and the sum of ₹ 79,519-12-9, the subject-matter of the deposit receipt in question and in the absence of any such connection 'having been established the appellant could not avail himself of the alleged acknowledgment of liability contained in the resolution of the Board of Directors dated May 20, 1941, even if it could perchance be construed as an acknowledgment of a su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strar of Companies. We are of the opinion that the copy should have been admitted in evidence and we do hereby admit the same. The appellant contends that that balance-sheet which was signed by the Directors contained an acknowledgment of the debt due by the company to the appellant for the sum of ₹ 67,939 as and by way of fixed deposit and that was sufficient to save the bar of limitation. The question therefore arises whether any presumption can be raised as regards the balance-sheet having been duly made by or under the appropriate authority or in regard to the accuracy of the statement contained therein under s. 3(b) of the Commer- cial Docuinents Evidence Act (XXX of 1939). It is to be noted that this presumption is not compulsory as in the case of s. 3(a) of the Act; it is discretionary with the court. The difficulty in the way of the appellant here is however insuperable because we find that there were factions in the company at or about the relevant time. A Directors' meeting was held on April 27, 1941, and the resignation of the appellant as the Chairman was accepted and another person was appointed in his place. A second meeting was called for May 17, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
