2008 (7) TMI 573 - HC - Companies Law

Winding up - whether the claim made by the respondent liquidator was barred by time as contended by the appellant and whether the respondent was entitled for the claim as made by him? Held that - In a given case like this once the official liquidator comes forward with a claim the court has to look into whether the claim is bona fide and the claim was made producing sufficient materials in his hands pointing to the claim. In the instant case as held by the learned Single Judge it has been correctly done. As far as the question as to the point of limitation was concerned period of limitation was available till 8-4-1990 and the application was filed on 7-11-1989 and thus it was well within the time. Both the contentions as to the point of limitation and sufficient proof was not adduced by the liquidator have been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge which finding in the opinion of the court is a reasoned one. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Claim barred by time, Principal documentary evidence not filed

Analysis:
The judgment challenges an order directing the appellant to pay the Official Liquidator a sum with interest. The claim made by the liquidator was for a specific amount due from the appellant, based on transactions between the parties. The appellant contended that the claim was barred by time and raised a dispute regarding the continuous nature of the transactions. The appellant argued that the claim lacked acceptable documentary evidence and should be rejected. On the other hand, the liquidator maintained that the claim was within the time limit and that the transactions constituted a continuous, mutual, open, and current account. The liquidator provided details from the company's records to support the claim. The court considered these arguments and evidence presented.

The main contentions raised were regarding the limitation of the claim and the absence of principal documentary evidence. The court noted that the liquidator had access to the company's books and records after the winding up, and the available documents were scrutinized by auditors. The liquidator's claim was based on the records available to him, and the court found the claim to be bona fide. The court emphasized that in cases like this, the claimant must produce sufficient materials to support the claim, which the liquidator had done. The court accepted the claim based on the available evidence and the liquidator's actions in handling the company's affairs post-liquidation.

Regarding the limitation issue, the appellant argued that each transaction was independent and that the claim was time-barred. However, the court disagreed, citing relevant provisions of the Limitation Act and the Companies Act. The court found that the claim was filed within the specified time limit and was not barred by time. The court upheld the decision of the Single Judge, who had correctly analyzed the evidence and rejected the appellant's contentions regarding limitation and lack of proof. The court concluded that the Single Judge's order was reasoned and warranted no interference, dismissing the appeal and ruling in favor of the liquidator.