Skip to content


Unisystems Private Limited Vs. Stepan Chemical Limited - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCompany Petition No. 77 of 1983
Judge
Reported in[1986]60CompCas753(P& H)
ActsCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 433, 434 and 439
AppellantUnisystems Private Limited
RespondentStepan Chemical Limited
Appellant Advocate R.D. Chaudhary and; P.S. Saini, Advs.
Respondent Advocate G.R. Majithia, Sr. Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....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.....s.p. goyal, j.1. the principal amount admittedly has been paid. the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the petitioner is entitled to get interest on the amount which was wrongly withheld. thelearned counsel opposite has controverted this claim and states that there is no stipulation between the parties regarding the payment of interest. the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that there is no agreement for the payment of interest but he claims it on the basis of the bills submitted. this claim thus being hotly disputed, no winding-up order can be passed on its basis. this petition is dismissed. no costs.
Judgment:

S.P. Goyal, J.

1. The principal amount admittedly has been paid. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the petitioner is entitled to get interest on the amount which was wrongly withheld. Thelearned counsel opposite has controverted this claim and states that there is no stipulation between the parties regarding the payment of interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that there is no agreement for the payment of interest but he claims it on the basis of the bills submitted. This claim thus being hotly disputed, no winding-up order can be passed on its basis. This petition is dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //