1989 (12) TMI 272 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Amount due from respondent
2. Recovery of interest
3. Future interest entitlement
4. Limitation on claim
5. Maintainability of the petition
6. Relief sought

Detailed Analysis:
1. The main issue was whether an amount of Rs. 10,168.80 was due from the respondent to the petitioners. The respondent claimed that the petitioner did not provide the required declaration in Form C, resulting in the respondent paying excess sales tax of Rs. 5,269.35. The respondent adjusted this amount and remitted the balance to the petitioner. The court found that the respondent was entitled to claim set-off for the excess sales tax paid due to the non-issuance of Form C by the petitioner. As there was no denial of the order placed by the petitioner and its status as a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, the court ruled in favor of the respondent on this issue.

2. The issue of recovering interest at the rate of 12% per annum was raised. However, the court ruled that since the claim for interest was not sustainable based on the findings of the first issue, the petitioners were not entitled to recover any interest. Therefore, issue 2 was decided against the petitioners.

3. Regarding the entitlement to future interest at the rate of 12% per annum, the court concluded that based on the findings of the first and second issues, the petitioners were not entitled to claim any future interest. Therefore, issue 3 was decided against the petitioners.

4. The question of whether the claim of the petitioners was barred by limitation was raised. The court referred this issue to a larger bench, which determined that the period of limitation for such claims starts from the date of the winding-up order. As a result, the claim was not barred by limitation, and issue 4 was decided in favor of the petitioners.

5. The issue of the maintainability of the petition without obtaining the court's sanction was raised. The court found that there was no impediment for the petitioners to maintain the petition, especially since the official liquidator had been appointed, and the company had gone into liquidation. Therefore, issue 5 was answered in favor of the petitioners.

6. Finally, the court dismissed the petition based on the findings of the first issue. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the relief sought in the petition was not granted.