K.D. Sharma, J.
1. This is an application filed by Pran Nath Bahl under Rule 177 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The averments made in the application are as follows.
2. The applicant advanced a cash loan of Rs. 2000/-, to M/s. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. on 26 6 65 and in lieu thereof they executed Hundi No. DB/F. 118/64/H 5165. On the maturity of the said Hundi it was presented to M/s. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. who executed apother Hundi in his favour payable on 23.12.1965. On 23.12.65, the applicant presented the said Hundi but the Company did not pay any sum The applicant claimed interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum on the Hundi amount of Rs. 2000/-, from 24.12.65 upto date, as he did not receive any notice purporting to be under Rule 148(2) of the Companies (Court) Ruler, 1969, which was mandatory for the con-applicant to have issued to the former. In the year 1972 when the applicant came to know of the fact that M/s Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. was ordered to be wound up on 10.5 68, and the non-applicant had invited claims from creditors by fixing 31.1.1970, as the last date, on that very day sent his claim to the Official Liquidator. The applicant was under the impression that his claim might have been allowed by the Official Liquidator. As the parents of the applicant remained seriously ill and he remained busy in attending to them throughout, since July, 1073 and as the applicant had to change his residences four times since 1965 and he could not lay his hands of letter No. GPP/8/1953 dated 26 9.1973. given by the Official Liquidator addressed to him and he found the said letter only on 17.3.1976. The applicant stated that be had not been negligent in any manner in filing his claim within time, but since he could not lay his hands on the Hundi and the relevant papers, he could not move this Court for consideration of delay caused in submitting his claim. Consequently, he prayed that the delay caused in filing the claim by him be condoned and his claim may be adjudicated either by this Court or the Official Liquidator be directed to do so.
3. On receipt of the application, a notice was ordered to be issued to the Official Liquidator, who has filed his writen reply. The Official Liquidator has admitted the execution of the Hundi and the amount due to the applicant against the Company in Liquidation. The Official Liquidator has mentioned in his reply that from the loan ledger of the Company it appears that a sum of Rs. 120/-, as interest was paid to the applicant upon the principal sum of Rs. 2000/-, from 26th June, 1965 to 23rd December, 1965 The rate of interest works out at 12% per annum and that no interest appear to have been paid to the applicant after 23rd December, 1965. It was further mentioned by the Official Liquidator in his reply that a public notice was given to the creditors by advertising it in the Indian Express dated 29.5.1989 and the Nav Bharat Times dated 24.5.1969 as per Rule 148 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, Individual notice was also issued under certificate of posting to the applicant. The Official Liquidator has produced a copy of the entry in register of certificates of postings maintained in his office.
4. The only question that calls for determination In this case is whether the applicant was negligent in submitting his claim in time.
5. In support of his contention, the applicant has appeared In the witness box and has stated that in the year 1976 he could lay hand upon a letter of the Official Liquidator whereby he was advised to apply to this Court for condonation of delay in filing the claim, but due to illness of his parents he could not apply for condonation of the delay. A notice of the date before which creditors of the Company were to prove their debts or claims was also given to the petitioner at his given address by post under a certificate of posting, but there is no proof on the record that the notice had reached the applicant. The contention of the applicant is that he was not available at his given address at the time when the notice was given to him by post became he had begun to the in another house Toe applicant has put in his affidavit in this behalf and has examined himself in this Court also. There is no reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the applicant, especially when it has not been controverter by showing that he bad received the notice given to him on 29th May, 1969, or that he was aware of the date fixed by the Official Liquidator on or before which the creditors were to prove their claims.
6. The application is, therefore, accepted and the delay in submission of the claim is condoned and the. Official Liquidator is directed to adjudicate upon the claim of the applicant in respect of the debt due to it against the Company. The applicant is directed to present his claim within a fortnight before the Official Liquidator. In the circumstances of the case, pass no order as to cons.