9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 being the principal together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the statutory notice till filing of the winding up petition and thereafter interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 2. The said order dated February 13, 2002, has been challenged on the ground that the claim of the respondent could not have been adjudicated upon in a summary proceedings and further the claim was barred under the provisions of laws of limitation. 3. Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant drew our attention to the notice under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, and contended that bills which were sought to be referred in the petition would show that the dates of the bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent duly gave credit in respect of the said amount and appropriated the said sum against the dues of the company. 7. He further drew our attention to the order passed by his Lordship on 13-2-2002, and contended that the admission on the part of the company which would be evident from the letter dated 14-1-2002, and further by learned counsel appearing for the company before the hon ble First Court where the learned advocate has specifically stated that at best the claim of the petitioner could be Rs. 3,49,000 and not Rs. 5,50,417. He further contended that the case of the settlement which was tried to be made out before his Lordship, was also negatived by his Lordship on the ground that there was no agreement between the parties for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent. Therefore, in our opinion his Lordship rightly came to the conclusion in the facts and circumstances of this case and we do not find any reason to interfere with the order so passed by his Lordship on the given facts. 10. Therefore, we uphold the decision of his Lordship and dismiss this appeal filed by the appellant herein. We also do not find any reason to allow the cross-objection on the ground of interest so granted by his Lordship and the cross-objection is also dismissed since we felt that no grounds have been made out by the respondent in support of their cross-objection. 11. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as well as the cross-objection so filed by the respondent. 12. Tapan Kumar Dutt, J. I agree. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
