9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 and P-3 are copies of two balance-sheets of the company for the period ending March 31, 1983, and March 31, 1984, in which an amount of Rs. 1.10 lakhs is shown to be with the company representing share application money pending allotment of shares. It is the common case of the parties that the company did not float any fresh shares and, therefore, none was allotted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the share money paid by him continued to remain in deposit with the company for a couple of years. It was in the year 1990, that he demanded the return of his money and he is said to have written some letters in this regard. Not having received any positive response he sent a registered letter dated December 6, 1990 (annexure P-4 with the petition), demanding the return of the amount along with interest. It was also stated that in case the amount was not paid, legal proceedings would be initiated for recovery of the same. The company denied the receipt of this letter but admitted the receipt of a registered envelope which, according to it, on opening contained nothing. This fact was communicated to the petitioner by a registered letter dated December 13, 1990 (annexure P- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ims whatsoever of the petitioner and his wife with the company. A copy of the statement made by the petitioner in that suit has been attached as annexure R-1 and a copy of the order passed by the court in that suit has been produced as annexure R-2 with the written statement. The case of the company is that the sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs which was paid to the petitioner and his wife on September 15, 1988, while settling the disputes in the suit included the amount of Rs. 1.10 lakhs deposited by the petitioner as share allotment money. It is denied that the company is unable to pay its debts. On the other hand, it is stated that the company which is being managed by the brother of the petitioner is doing very good business and has large profits and that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner out of sheer jealousy on this account. The company also claims to have sent a reply to both the statutory notices received from the petitioner as per its letters dated February 11, 1991, and October 1, 1992, copies of which have been attached as annexures R-4 and R-5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the stand taken by the company. It is stated that the company has set up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... areholders of the company held on August 6, 1982, and August 10, 1982, were illegal, unlawful and ultra vires the bye-laws of the company and the business transacted in the two meetings was also illegal and unlawful. A permanent injunction was sought seeking to restrain defendants Nos. 4 to 18 therein from posing, working and acting as owners and holders of the aforesaid 62 equity shares. Lastly, a mandatory injunction was also sought against the company and its directors to treat the plaintiffs including the petitioner herein as shareholders of the company holding the aforesaid 62 equity shares of Rs. 1,000 each. It appears that the petitioner and his family members were holding 62 equity shares in the company which the latter had transferred in favour of defendants Nos. 4 to 18 in the suit in the two meetings mentioned above and it was to challenge these proceedings that the suit was filed. This was, indeed, the only dispute in the suit which was settled between the parties. The petitioner and his family members were eased out of the company as shareholders on a payment of Rs. 1.50 lakhs. The petitioner who was plaintiff No. 1 in the suit made the following statement in court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r served a registered notice on December 6, 1990, calling upon the company to return the amount, the company sent a registered letter informing the petitioner that it had received an empty registered envelope. It is difficult to believe that a creditor who is seeking the return of his money from the debtor will send an empty registered envelope as alleged by the company. When other letters were sent by the petitioner, the company claims to have sent a reply as per its letter dated January 2, 1991. The petitioner has denied the receipt of this letter and the company has not cared to file a copy of the same. Again, when registered notices under section 434 of the Act were received by the company, it is stated to have sent the replies copies of which have been produced as annexures R-4 and R-5. The petitioner in replication categorically denies having received any of these replies. It is not known as to how these replies were sent. Learned counsel for the company states that these letters were sent under certificate of posting. Certificate of posting from the postal authorities has not been produced on the record and no reference to it has been made in the written statement. Even othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 276. If this article is applicable, then the period of limitation for recovering the amount is three years and the time from which this period will begin to run is the date of refusal after demand. According to the allegations made in the petition the demand was made for the return of the money in July, 1990, and again in December, 1990, though the company alleged that the demand was made in July, 1982, when the petitioner wrote a letter in this regard to the company a certified copy of which from the record of the Labour Court, Jalandhar where it is stated to have been filed in some other proceedings has been produced. It is not necessary to decide as to when the demand was made in the instant case as I am holding that article 70 is not applicable. Learned counsel for the company, on the other hand, contended that the return of money in the circumstances of the present case would be governed by article 24 of the 1963 Act according to which the period of limitation is three years from the date when the money was received by the company. The argument is that since three years from the date of receipt of the money are long over the recovery of the amount had become barred by time. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
