In Re: Stepan Chemicals Ltd.; - Court Judgment
|Court||Punjab and Haryana High Court|
|Case Number||Company Petition No. 87 of 1982|
|Judge|| S.P. Goyal, J.|
|Reported in||61CompCas358(P& H)|
|Appellant||In Re: Stepan Chemicals Ltd.; ;In Re: Warden and Co. (India) Private Ltd.|
|Appellant Advocate|| S.S. Mahajan, Adv.|
|Respondent Advocate|| G.R. Majithia and; Salib Sagar, Advs.|
.....if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement..........this claim and states that there is no stipulation between the parties regarding payment of interest. learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that there is no agreement for the payment of interest but he claims it on the basis of bills submitted (annexures p-1 to p-4 annexed to the petition). this claim thus being hotly disputed, no winding up orders can be passed on its basis. the petition is dismissed. no costs.
S.P. Goyal, J.
1. The principal amount to the tune of Rs. 1,40,449.42 admittedly has been paid today in court by way of bank draft No. II/80/A.216375/14937 dated August 17, 1984. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the petitioner is entitled to get interest on the amount which was wrongly withheld. Learned counsel for the opposite party has controverted this claim and states that there is no stipulation between the parties regarding payment of interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that there is no agreement for the payment of interest but he claims it on the basis of bills submitted (annexures P-1 to P-4 annexed to the petition). This claim thus being hotly disputed, no winding up orders can be passed on its basis. The petition is dismissed. No costs.