9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner s books of account prior to three years. Both the findings, are challenged in this appeal by the petitioner/appellant. 2. It is pointed out by the learned Company Judge in para 10 of his judgment that E.A-61 was the running account, but it was for different periods. It gave the periods as 23-4-2001 to 30-4-2001, 28-5-2001 to 31-5-2001, 27-6-2001 to 6-7-2001, 27-7-2001 to 31-7-2001, 27-8-2001 to 31-8-2001, 18-9-2001 to 30-9-2001, 22-10-2001 to 31-10-2001, 22-11-2001 to 30-11-2001, 21-12-2001 to 31-12-2001, 23-1-2002 to 31-1-2002, 1-2-2002 to 28-2-2002 and 2-3-2002 to 23-3-2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that it was a running account and the last transaction was between 2-3-2002 to 23-3-2002. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case remarked that where there was no doubt that a company owes the creditor a debt entitling him to a winding up order, but the exact amount of the debt is disputed, the Court will make a winding up order without requiring the creditor to quantify the debt precisely. The Supreme Court said : "Two rules are well-settled. First if the debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the Court will not wind up the company. The court has dismissed a petition for winding up where the creditor claimed a sum for goods sold to the company and the company contended that no price had been agreed upon and the sum demanded by the creditor was unreasonable ( See London and Paris Banking Corporation [1874] 19 Eq. 444). Again, a pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f limitation is computed from the above dates, the competition is clearly barred by limitation and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed." 5. Now if the date i.e., 21-3-2001 or 23-3-2002 is taken into consideration, the company petition was within the limitation and we fail to understand how the Company Court came to the conclusion that it was not within the period of limitation, if the dates were taken to be 21-3-2001 or 23-3-2002 as the period of limitation undoubtedly is three years. Perhaps the Company Court took the date 20-4-2005 for computing the period of limitation, but that was the date on which the company petition was decided. The company petition, as record reveals, was filed on 31-3-2002. Therefore, in our vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
