9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the petitioner company. The petitioner company has not produced on record any copy of the account to show as to what was the final balance in the account of the petitioner company. Even if there was any such dispute, the same could be raised within the period of limitation when the debit note was issued by the respondent company or at the most when the account was settled with the respondent company. As is claimed, the petitioner company filed application before the BIFR, which was registered as case No. 348/1998. It was declared sick vide order dated 14.5.1999. Pendency of an application filed by the petitioner company before the BIFR does not mean that it could not proceed against its debtors in the Court of law within the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er company for purchase of drugs, which are manufactured by the petitioner company for the purpose of export by the respondent company. Raw material was to be imported by the respondent company as per the terms of agreement. Raw material purchased by the respondent company and supplied to the petitioner was to be debited in the account of the petitioner, whereas value of the manufactured medicines supplied by the petitioner were to be credited. On 5.8.1998, the petitioner received a consignment of raw material containing Penicillin-G consisting of 30,000 BOU amounting to ₹ 1,72,88,254/-.The amount was debited in the account of the petitioner by the respondent company. However, on testing it was found that the material was spurious. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent company submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed as the claim sought to be made is highly belated. A time barred debt cannot be used to arm twist the respondent company under the threat of winding up. The issue was pertaining to the year 1998. The petition was filed about 13 years thereafter in the year 2011. He further submitted that merely because the petitioner company was before the BIFR, the same will not stop the period of limitation for making any claim. If the petitioner company had to raise the claim against the respondent company, the same could be within the period of limitation. In support of the plea, reliance was placed upon a judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he undisputed case of the petitioner company is that transaction took place way back in the year 1998. The debit note was issued by the respondent company on account of supply of raw material for manufacture of drugs on job work basis. It is claimed by the petitioner company that the raw material supplied was spurious, hence, the amount should not have been debited in the account of the petitioner company. The petitioner company has not produced on record any copy of the account to show as to what was the final balance in the account of the petitioner company. Even if there was any such dispute, the same could be raised within the period of limitation when the debit note was issued by the respondent company or at the most when the account w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
