9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set up in the petition is that the respondent-company was incorporated on March 30, 1970, under the Act and its registered office is at 866, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana. The objects of the respondent-company have been enumerated in para. 6 of the petition. The petitioner-firm rendered its services as clearing and forwarding agents to the respondent-company from time to time and is also maintaining the account of the respondent-company. The petitioner has placed on record a statement of accounts of the respondent-company, annexure P-1 according to which a sum of Rs. 4,06,308.73 has been shown due to it from the respondent, along with interest at the rate of 21 per cent. per annum. Further, the petitioner also placed on record a certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding as on July 31, 1992, has never been shown in the books of account of the respondent-company in the name of the petitioner-firm. Though it has been admitted that the letter pad used for preparing the letter annexure P-2 is of the respondent-company but it has been clarified that the respondent-company shifted its registered office from its previous place being 866, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana, to Plot No. A-6, Phase-V, Focal Point on March 31, 1990, and thus the letter annexure P-2 bearing the date August 1, 1992, allegedly issued by the respondent-company cannot be taken to be a genuine document. The respondent-company has never received any bills or reminders thereof from the petitioner and even has never acknowledged its liability to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is shown to have been made on March 18, 1991, whereby a sum of Rs. 40,000 has been paid through the cheque. After March 18, 1991, there is no acknowledgment of debt on behalf of the respondent of any kind whatsoever and, therefore, by taking the limitation which is three years for recovery of debts, etc., from the aforesaid date, the petition in hand filed on August 8, 1995, is clearly barred by time. In the last limb of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petition for winding up is in the nature of summary proceedings and since in the wake of denial by the respondent of having any business transactions with the petitioner-firm and further in the absence of any cogent proof on the record in that behalf, a disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany on account of which certain amount as mentioned therein is due to it from the respondent-company and the respondent-company has in spite of repeated demands, failed to pay its debts. In support of this averment, statement of account, annexure P-1, and letter dated August 1, 1992, annexure P-2, have been pressed into service in order to establish that the sum as mentioned in annexure P-l was due and the said credit balance was confirmed by the respondent-company, vide annexure P-2 whereby it was also undertaken that the same will be paid within three months. The respondent-company has categorically denied knowledge about statement of account, annexure P-1, and it has further categorically denied that the confirmation letter, annexure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is not even one on the record to support the fact. If the petitioner-firm had in fact been dealing with the respondent-company, the petitioner-firm must have produced on record some copies of the correspondence, namely, letters from the respondent-company whereby a request may have been made to the petitioner-firm for making its services available or some other correspondence of the like. In the absence of any such material, it is difficult to countenance the case as set up by the petitioner-firm. Even otherwise, since there is a dispute between the parties about having business dealings with each other and apparently this being a disputed question of fact, it cannot be gone into in the present proceedings of summary nature. In view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time when the acknowledgment of liability is so signed. Though in the present case, on an objection being raised by learned counsel for the respondent that the petition is barred by time, learned counsel for the petitioner did not utter a word to show that the said objection is misconceived and the petition is not barred by time, yet it is worthy to mention here that in the statement of account, annexure P-1, produced on record by the petitioner, the last payment on behalf of the respondent to the petitioner has been shown to have been made on March 18, 1991. Though the respondent has specifically denied any knowledge about the said statement of account but even if it be 'taken to be an extract from the ledger of the petitioner-company for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
