9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29.12.2010 sent by K. Nath “General Manager Group Legal & Company Secretary” on behalf of Ashok Piramal Management Operation Ltd - Said letter cannot be accepted as an acknowledgement by the respondent company for the reasons that, neither the letter purports to be on behalf of the respondent company nor is it signed by an authorized signatory of the respondent company - The fact that the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.12 lakhs during the course of the present proceedings also would not extend limitation in favour of the petitioner. This is so because the said payment has been made after the period of limitation has expired and therefore the provisions of Section 19 of The Limitation Act, 1963, are not applicable - Decided against Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner is ex-facie barred by limitation. During the course of proceedings, the respondent was directed to file a breakup of the amount of sundry creditors reflected in the balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2012. Although, the respondent did not file the statement indicating the said break up of the amount reflected as liability in its Balance Sheet, the same was produced in Court. The learned counsel for the respondent conceded that the books of account of the respondent company reflected a sum of Rs.12 lakhs as due and payable to the petitioner. The said amount has since been paid by the respondent to the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The principal question that arises for considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... except a letter dated 29.12.2010 sent by K. Nath General Manager Group Legal Company Secretary on behalf of Ashok Piramal Management Operation Ltd. The said letter is also on the letterhead: Ashok Piramal Group . In my view the said letter cannot be accepted as an acknowledgement by the respondent company for the reasons that, neither the letter purports to be on behalf of the respondent company nor is it signed by an authorized signatory of the respondent company. In any event, the question whether the said letter binds the respondent would raise a contentious issue which cannot be examined in the present proceedings. 8. The fact that the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.12 lakhs during the course of the present proceedings also wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
