9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner No. 1 was acquired by petitioner No. 2 by virtue of the Maruti limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (Act 64 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as "the 1980 Act"), along with the right, title and interest excepting the liabilities of the company ordered to be wound up. Petitioner No. 1 had business dealings with the respondent-company and it opened a running account of the respondent on June 23, 1972. Petitioner No. 1 and the respondent continued to have business transactions till January 14, 1976, on which date the credit-debit balance was struck and it was found that the respondent was liable to pay Rs. 10,168 to the petitioners. A notice of demand was sent to the respondent on March 30, 1978, calling upon it t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the concessional rate of tax. Petitioner No. 1 also made purchases in pursuance of its order dated June 23, 1972, vide Bill No. 33440032, dated September 10, 1974, for Rs. 51, 500 with tax liability of Rs. 5,150, and Bill No. 33300733, dated May 30, 1975, for Rs. 1,326.14 with tax liability of Rs. 119.35. As the purchaser, as per terms mentioned in the purchase order dated June 23, 1972, was supposed to send the declaration in Form C no tax was charged from it. The respondent waited for the declaration in Form C but the same were not supplied by petitioner No. 1. The respondent was left with no other alternative but to adjust the tax liability of Rs. 5,269.35 and send the balance amount of Rs. 4,730.65 to petitioner No. 1, vide letter d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, we are of the considered view that the period of limitation for an application making a claim under section 446(2) of the Act on behalf of the company, which is being wound up, shall commence from the date of the winding up order and the period from the date of commencement of the winding up of the company to the date the winding up order is made, both inclusive, and a period of one year immediately following the date of winding up shall be excluded in computing the period of three years provided by article 137 of the Limitation Act." In view of the authoritative decision by the Bench, issue No. 4 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent. Issues Nos. 1 and 2. The parties are in unison that a sum of Rs. 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cover the sales. In the said order, Central sales tax registration number of Maruti Limited was quoted to show that Maruti Limited is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act and was entitled to make purchases at the concessional rate of tax. That Maruti Limited, as mentioned in the petition, made so many purchases and they had always been sending Form C as per the terms of order R-1. That, subsequently, they made purchases in pursuance of order, R-1, vide Bill No. 3340032, dated September 10, 1974, for Rs. 51,500 with tax liability of Rs. 5,150 and Bill No. 33300733, dated May 30, 1975 for Rs. 1,326.14 with tax liability of Rs. 119.35 respectively. As the purchasers as per terms mentioned in the purchase order, annexure R-1, wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y made after the passing of the winding up order which is not permissible according to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondents are entitled to file their claims in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and, in any case, are not entitled to make the adjustments after the company had been ordered to be wound up as the winding up order commences from the date of filing of the petition. Thus, no adjustment could be made after the petition had been filed and especially after the winding up order had been passed. The adjustment is, therefore, not admitted as the same has been claimed without any justification under law and facts of the case." There was no denial that an order was placed by petitioner No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short, "the Rules"). Clause (4) of rule 2 defines the term "Code" as meaning the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 6 ibid provides that, save as otherwise provided by the Code or by these Rules, the practice and procedure of the court and the provisions of the Code so far as applicable shall apply to all proceedings under the Act and these Rules. The proceedings under the Act will be regulated by the procedure prescribed under the Code save as otherwise expressly provided. Rule 6 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the defendant's claim to set off any demand in suit for an ascertained sum of money legally recoverable. In the absence of any contrary provision, the provisions of rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
