9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantial defence in an application for winding up provided, however, it has its sustenance from the factual score. 2. On the wake of the aforesaid, let us advert to the factual aspect of the matter briefly at this juncture: Admittedly, the respondent-company had supplied C.I. castings, fan body, bottom covers, etc., to the appellant-company in the month of August, 1992 under two separate bills i.e., for Rs. 98,268.77 ps. and Rs. 1,32,939.46 ps., totalling Rs. 2,31,298.23 ps. The petitioner before the learned single Judge did serve a legal notice on 3-8-1995 and thereafter a statutory notice under section 434 of the Act on 27-8-1996. The appellant-company, however, thought it prudent not to reply to any of the notices as above and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... words and in the event the words used indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor and the statement is made with the intention to admit such jural relationship, question of the claim being barred does not arise. The Supreme Court went on to observe that the intention to admit jural relationship can also be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission and need not be expressed in words and if the statement is fairly clear, then, and, in that event intention to admit jural relationship may be implied from the same. 3. As noted above, the appellant-company did furnish sales-tax declara- tion form regarding the self-same sale transaction between the parties. Does it not m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised person to sign on behalf of the appellant-company. Significantly, however, this very Office Mana-ger has been authorised by the appellant-company to sign in matters pertaining to excise matters involving the company. In any event, though the Office Manager cannot be termed to be a principal officer of the company within the meaning of the Act - but he cannot but be termed as a responsible officer for the purpose of making an acknowledgment of liability for and on behalf of the company. On the factual score, therefore, also there is no merit as regards the plea of limitation. 6. The learned advocate for the appellant-company did place reliance on the decision of this Court in K. Appa Rao v. Sarkar Chemicals (P.) Ltd. [1985] 84 C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
