9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Is the claim not barred by time? 2. If the claim is barred by time, is there any reason to condone the delay as per application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act? 3. Was the hire-purchase agreement signed in blank, and if so, what is the effect on the transaction? 4. Was the vehicle taken back by the company a year after the agreement and are the accounts of the company fabricated? 5. What amount, if any, is due to the company from the respondents or any of them? 6. Relief. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Is the claim not barred by time? The court examined the period of limitation for applications under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, referencing two Full Bench Judgments: AIR1978Delhi158 and AIR1978Delhi167. The court concluded that a claim which had become time-barred by the date of the winding-up petition cannot be revived by the Official Liquidator under Section 446(2)(b). The application by the Official Liquidator should have been filed within four years from the winding-up order date, i.e., by 12-2-1971. Since the application was filed on 19-2-1974, it was deemed time-barred. 2. If the claim is barred by time, is there any reason to condone the delay as per application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act? The court considered whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the application. The applicant argued that they were under a bona fide impression that there was no period of limitation for filing claims under Section 446 of the Companies Act until clarified by a Supreme Court decision in 1976. The court agreed, referencing the explanation to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for sufficient cause if the applicant was misled by a judgment. Therefore, the delay was condoned. 3. Was the hire-purchase agreement signed in blank, and if so, what is the effect on the transaction? The respondents claimed the hire-purchase agreement was signed in blank. However, the court found that despite the blank agreement, the hire-purchase transaction was admitted by the respondents through their oral evidence. The former managing director of the company confirmed the transaction, and the court concluded that the blank agreement did not affect the merits of the applicant's claim. 4. Was the vehicle taken back by the company a year after the agreement and are the accounts of the company fabricated? The respondents alleged that the company had taken back the vehicle and fabricated the accounts. However, the court found no evidence to support these claims. The oral testimonies provided by the respondents were inconsistent and lacked credibility. The court concluded that the vehicle was not taken back by the company and that the accounts were not fabricated. 5. What amount, if any, is due to the company from the respondents or any of them? The court examined the evidence and found that the company had advanced a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 to the principal debtor. The incidental charges and interest were also considered. The court concluded that the respondents owed the company a total of Rs. 21,850.00, including hire-money, interest, and incidental charges. 6. Relief Based on the findings, the court passed a claim order in favor of the applicant, jointly and severally against the three respondents, for the recovery of Rs. 21,850.00. There was no order as to costs in the application.
|
