9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firms dealing in gunny bags, claiming that the company was indebted to the tune of Rs. 1,34,987 to the first petitioner and Rs. 2,71,342 to the second petitioner on account of supply of gunny bags. The petition was presented on March 30, 1990. It was preceded by a notice dated February 12, 1990, claiming the above-said amounts and threatening a winding up petition to which, the first respondent-company had sent a reply on the same day admitting the claim and stating that the company was financially not in a position to pay the amounts immediately on account of various contingencies and offering earnest efforts to pay the amounts and praying for time. 3. When the petition was presented, the respondent-company entered appearance and took ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offee Board filed C.A. No. 96 of 1996 under rule 101 of the Companies (Court) Rules praying that it may be substituted for the original petitioners. That application was opposed on behalf of the company. After hearing both sides, the petition was allowed by the company judge by order dated August 1, 1997 [since in L.R. Rangaier Sons (P.) Ltd., In re [1999] 96 Comp. Cas. 579 (Ker.)]. It was taken in appeal before a Division Bench as M.F.A. No. 1009 of 1997. The order transposing the Coffee Board as a petitioner was upheld by judgment dated January 4, 1999 [since in L.R. Rangaier Sons (Under Liquidation) v. Coffee Board [1999] 97 Comp. Cas. 205 (Ker.)] 1 . However, the company was allowed to file an affidavit-in-opposition under rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the company. As per the report, there was a shortage of about 17 tonnes of coffee worth more than Rs. 43 lakhs. The available stock has been delivered to the Coffee Board also. The contention of the first respondent-company is that the company or its officers are not liable for the shortage or for the damage to the coffee stock after the date of the order appoin-ting the provisional liquidator. The company has also pointed out that there were regular joint stock verifications by the company and the Coffee Board and the customs officials were also inspecting the stock. The Coffee Board relies upon a report by a chartered accountant assessing the shortage. Anyhow, it is not necessary to go into the details, as evidence has not been taken on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition after substitution, it is sufficient that the substituted petitioner will be entitled to file a petition, if necessary, after sending due notice. Since the Coffee Board has a claim against the company, it is entitled to give a notice and file a petition. So, as the substituted petitioner, the Coffee Board is entitled to pursue this petition also. As about 10 years have elapsed after the original petition was filed, and the Coffee Board had already filed a claim soon after the petition, at this stage, it is not proper to direct the Coffee Board to pursue its remedies in a civil court. Such a civil suit will be time-barred also. However, as the liability is disputed, it must be determined. Only if it is found that actually amounts are d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
