REUNION ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD Vs. UMA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the Appellant challenges the order dated March 2, 2006, passed by the learned single judge admitting Company Petition No. 570 of 2005 (Uma Kumar v. Reunion Electrical Manufacturers P. Ltd., 2008 145 CompCas 823). That company petition was filed for winding up of the Appellant-company on an allegation that it is not in a position to pay its debts. According to the Respondent, the Appellant by its letter dated November 5, 2001, acknowledged its liability to pay a sum of Rs. 6,61,540.27 to the Respondent. This debt was not paid by the Appellant-company though promised. Ultimately, a statutory notice was issued. It was claimed that in the reply to the statutory notice, again the debt was acknowledged but the payment was not made. Therefore, the company petition was filed.

(2.) There was only one defence raised by the company, namely, that the debt is time barred. Before the learned single judge, it appears two contentions were raised (i) that giving of C form along with letter dated September 19, 2003, amounts to payment of part of the debt under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and (ii) it was claimed that by reply to the statutory notice a promise to pay admitted amount was made therefore under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 claim was made within the period of limitation.

(3.) The learned single judge, however, rejected the argument based on the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned single judge, however, held that by reply to the statutory notice there was implied promise made to pay the debt. The learned judge, therefore, held that debt for which the statutory notice was issued and the company petition filed was not the debt barred by the law of limitation. However, surprisingly the learned single judge made a direction in the company petition for payment of Rs. 9,00,000 within twelve weeks to the Petitioner by the Respondent-company. Failure to make the payment was to result in admission of the petition. It is this order which is challenged in the appeal.