9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the remark “left” is concerned, a perusal of the said registered AD indicates that the Postman has made an endorsement on the said envelope “Left company. Return to the sender”. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made any efforts thereafter to serve the notice personally at the registered office of the respondent. A perusal of the affidavit in reply indicates that it is the case of the respondent that the registered office address of the respondent continues even till today and that the respondent company is carrying on business from the said address. No rejoinder is filed to controvert this averment. In my view, Dr.Chandrachud is right in his submission that the statutory notice not having been served at the registered office of the respondent company, the petition for winding up was not maintainable on that ground also. Insofar as the last submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that there are duplicate invoices is concerned, a perusal of the documents annexed to the petition indicates that there is some duplication of invoices. The explanation of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this issue that they are not duplicate invoices bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lling upon the respondent to pay the sum of ₹ 24,01,125/- with further interest thereon. The petitioner filed a winding up petition bearing Company Petition (Lodging) No.569 of 2012 in this Court against the respondent. On 12th February, 2012, this Court recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said statutory notice dated 1st May, 2012 was served upon the respondent at the business address of the respondent and not at its registered office. This Court accordingly granted a liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the said Company Petition (Lodging) No.569 of 2012 with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action after issuing proper notice in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner thereafter issued another statutory notice on 26th February, 2014 at the registered office of the respondent calling upon the respondent to pay the sum of ₹ 53,12,683/- with further interest thereon. It is the case of the petitioner that the said statutory notice was returned unserved by the Post Office with remarks Left company. Return to sender on 13th March, 2014. 6. It is submitted that since the respondent did not make the balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claims made by the petitioner were barred by law of limitation, the petitioner ceased to be a creditor of the respondent and thus this Court cannot entertain this company petition. In support of this submission, learned counsel invited my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Modern Dekor Painting Contracts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jenson Nicholson (India) Ltd., 1984, Mh.L.J. 988 and in particular paragraphs 2, 12 and 17. 10. The next submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the statutory notice was not served at the registered office address of the respondent notified with the Registrar of Companies. He invited my attention to pages 69 and 70 of the petition which shows an endorsement made by the Postman Left Company, Return to sender . He submits that it is not clear from the perusal of the said endorsement made by the Postman, whether the notice was left at the premises of the respondent or the respondent company itself had left. He invited my attention to the averments made in the affidavit in reply in support of his submission that the registered office of the respondent is at the same address on which the statutory notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de defence and thus the petition deserves to be admitted. 15. I shall first deal with the issue of limitation raised by the respondent. A perusal of the averments made in the petition indicates that according to the petitioner, the transactions between the parties were during the period between 2006 and 2007. It is the case of the petitioner that during the period between 1st April, 2006 and 13th July, 2011, the respondent had made various payments to the petitioner. The said statement indicates that the last payment excluding the cash of ₹ 50,000/- was made by the respondent on 1st October, 2008. The TDS of ₹ 567/- was deducted on 28th September, 2008. 16. In support of the submission that the respondent had made part payment of ₹ 50,000/- on 13th July, 2011, the petitioner has placed reliance on two alleged vouchers at Exhibit C-2 which are dated 11th and 12th July, 2011 for ₹ 16,000/- and ₹ 18,000/- respectively. A perusal of the notice dated 11th February, 2012 indicates that it was the case of the petitioner that the respondent had made last payment of ₹ 15,000/- to the petitioner on 13th July, 2011. In the statutory notice dated 1st M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner not having been issued a statutory notice at the registered office of the respondent company is concerned, in my view the said petition which was filed without issuing a statutory notice at the registered office of the respondent would not save limitation. The letter dated 23rd February, 2012 addressed by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to furnish certain details would also not extend the period of limitation. It is held in catena of judgments that the correspondence does not extend the period of limitation unless there is acknowledgement of liability. 20. Insofar as the issue raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the notice was not served upon the registered office of the respondent and the packet containing such notice was returned unserved with the remark left is concerned, a perusal of the said registered AD indicates that the Postman has made an endorsement on the said envelope Left company. Return to the sender . It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made any efforts thereafter to serve the notice personally at the registered office of the respondent. A perusal of the affidavit in reply indicates that it is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
