LAWS(BOM)-2003-11-7

BASANT LAL AGARWAL Vs. LLOYDS FINANCE LTD

Decided On November 21, 2003
BASANT LAL AGARWAL Appellant
V/S
LLOYDS FINANCE LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON December 6, 1996, the petitioner placed with the respondent an amount of Rs. 3,75,000 in deposit for a period of three years. The maturity date of the deposit was December 5, 1999, and interest was payable at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum. The terms and conditions governing the deposit provided, inter alia, in Clause (3) thus :

(2.) THE deposit matured on December 5, 1999. On April 16, 2002, a statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent claiming repayment of the monies due and payable. There were further notices dated May 9, 2002, July 2, 2002, and July 19, 2002, before the company petition came to be instituted in this court on August 23, 2002. The notice dated July 2, 2002, was addressed to a company by the name of Lloyds Housing Finance Ltd. and the reason for addressing the notice to that company was spelt out in paragraph 4 of the letter. It was stated therein that when the petitioner had taken a search with the Registrar of Companies, it was found that there was no company registered in the name of Lloyds Finance and that the name of the company had been changed to Lloyds Housing Finance Ltd. The addressee of the letter Lloyds Housing Finance Ltd. was called upon to intimate as to whether the name of the company has been changed failing which proceedings would be adopted against both the companies.

(3.) EVENTUALLY, when the company petition was filed, it was styled as one in the matter of "m/s. Lloyds Housing Finance Ltd, also known as "lloyds Finance Ltd. " Subsequently, by a judges summons (Judges Summons No. 446 of 2003) an amendment was sought in the petition so as to provide that the petition was against Lloyds Finance Ltd. and to delete the reference Lloyds Housing Finance Ltd. While allowing the amendment, the question as regards the maintainability of the petition and the defence of the debt being barred by limitation were kept specifically open,