PATEL INVESTMENTS Vs. CREDENTIAL FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition for winding up has been filed in respect of certain sums of money advanced by the petitioners to the company under a bill rediscounting facility on May 16, 1996, May 22, 1996, and August 19, 1996. The company issued letters of confirmation in token of having received the demand draft from the petitioners and purported to enclose post-dated cheques in various amounts to the petitioners. The cheques, which were issued, were dishonoured. According to the petitioners, the petitioners thereafter, addressed a letter on August 19, 1996, to the company by which there was a roll over of the bill rediscounting facility for a further period of 90 days. Together with the said letter, another post-dated cheque came to be enclosed by the company.

(2.) THE petitioners issued a statutory notice for winding up on February 25, 2000, and in reply thereto, there was a letter addressed on March 11, 2000, by the company. By its letter dated March 11, 2000, the company has taken the position that the payments which were made to the petitioners under the bill rediscounting scheme were on December 5, 1996, after which no further payment was made and the entire claim was, therefore, barred by limitation. The petitioner in its notice for winding up has sought to place reliance on a letter dated April 17, 1997, by which the company purportedly confirmed that an amount of Rs. 23,95,631 was due and payable to the petitioner. In reply to the notice for winding up, the company has denied that it had by its letter dated April 17, 1997, confirmed that an amount of Rs. 23,95,631 was due and payable and called upon the petitioner to furnish a copy of the said letter.

(3.) PROLIXITY of pleadings is becoming a fashion of the times. The petitioner has filed its sur-sur-rejoinder in these proceedings on December 21, 2000, by which, for the first time, certain documents have been sought to be relied upon to demonstrate that even after April, 1997, when Vikas Dalvi is alleged to have left service, he had written a letter to a creditor of the company acknowledging the liability of the company setting out a schedule for the repayment of dues and in pursuance thereof, the company had in fact issued cheques. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the company controverted the authenticity of the letter which has been sought to be relied upon and which was produced before this court for the first time in sur-sur-rejoinder. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the company submitted that while the company had issued cheques, these were all signed by the directors and the company has no record of any letter having been addressed by the said Vikas Dalvi as contended by the petitioner.