9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the application filed by the Official Liquidator is barred by time? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to recover the claimed amount from the respondent? Analysis: Issue 1: The respondent argued that the application is time-barred, while the applicant contended otherwise based on Section 458A of the Companies Act. The court noted that the period of limitation excludes the time from the commencement of winding up proceedings till one year after the winding up order. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was clarified that if the claim was determined when winding up began, and if the limitation period had expired by then, it cannot be extended. In this case, the claim was from 1989, and the limitation period expired in 1992, before the winding up proceedings began in 1994. The court rejected the argument to exclude the time taken before the winding up order, stating it was not covered under Section 458A. Therefore, the court held that the application was time-barred. Issue 2: The applicant sought to recover an amount from the respondent based on ledger entries. However, the respondent denied the claim, stating lack of supporting documents. The court observed that the applicant failed to provide substantial evidence to prove the debt, such as vouchers, purchase orders, or acknowledgment of the debt by the respondent. The court found that the entry in the ledger alone was insufficient to substantiate the claim. As the applicant did not present convincing evidence supporting the debt claim, the court ruled against the applicant. Consequently, the court dismissed the application with no costs awarded. In conclusion, the court held that the application was time-barred and rejected the recovery claim due to insufficient evidence provided by the applicant.
|
