Skip to content


Depro Foods Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Lohri Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany;Limitation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCompany Petition No. 141 of 1983
Judge
Reported in[1985]57CompCas818(P& H)
ActsLimitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3
AppellantDepro Foods Ltd. (In Liquidation)
RespondentLohri Singh and anr.
Appellant Advocate H.S. Bajwa, Adv.
Respondent Advocate A.K. Jaiswal, Adv. for respondent No. 2
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. 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..........be passed against the respondents. 3. today it was found that prima facie the petition was barred by limitation. consequently, i framed the following preliminary issue : whether the petition is within limitation 4. according to the allegations in the petition, an amount of rs. 1,307.96 was due from respondent no. 1 on october 21, 1976. the limitation under the limitation act, 1963, for recovery of such amounts is three years. in addition, the petitioner is entitled to exclude the period from the period of limitation, for which the petition for winding up remained pending in this court and a further period of one year under section 458a of the act. the petition remained pending in the court for a period of two years, nine months and fourteen days. thus, in all, the petition could.....
Judgment:

Mittal, J.

1. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was a limited company and was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale ofpacked and canned food at Rai district, Sonepat. It was ordered to be wound up, vide order dated August 21, 1980, in C. P. No. 234 of 1977 presented on November 7, 1977. It is alleged that the petitioner-company was supplying goods to respondent No. 1 and that, according to the ledger account and statement of affairs furnished by the ex-managing director of the company under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), an amount of Rs. 1,307.96 was due from him on account of the price of the goods. He did not pay the amount in spite of the notice dated February 17, 1981, served by the official liquidator on him.

2. Respondent No. 2, it is further averred, was the managing director of the company and was duty bound to recover the amount while the company was functioning but he failed to do so ; therefore, he was personally liable to pay the amount under Section 453 of the Act. Consequently, a prayer has been made that a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,307.96 with interest be passed against the respondents.

3. Today it was found that prima facie the petition was barred by limitation. Consequently, I framed the following preliminary issue :

Whether the petition is within limitation

4. According to the allegations in the petition, an amount of Rs. 1,307.96 was due from respondent No. 1 on October 21, 1976. The limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963, for recovery of such amounts is three years. In addition, the petitioner is entitled to exclude the period from the period of limitation, for which the petition for winding up remained pending in this court and a further period of one year under Section 458A of the Act. The petition remained pending in the court for a period of two years, nine months and fourteen days. Thus, in all, the petition could be filed within a period of six years, nine months and fourteen days. According to the calculations, the limitation expired on September 5, 1983. However, the petition was filed on October 24, 1983. Thus, it is clearly barred by limitation. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. It is well settled that the provisions of this section are mandatory and it is the duty of the court to dismiss the petition if it is barred by limitation.

5. For the reasons aforesaid, I dismiss the petition as barred by limitation.

6. No order as to costs.


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