JUMGO COTTON ENTERPRISES Vs. RAYALSEEMA MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the order of learned Company Judge in CP No. 143 of 2002. The company petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that there was no ascertained or determined debt and the application of the petitioner firm related to the entries made in the petitioner's books of account prior to three years. Both the findings are challenged in this appeal by the petitioner/appellant.

(2.) It is pointed out by the learned Company Judge in para-10 of his judgment that E.A-61 was the running account, but it was for different periods. It gave the periods as 23.4.2001 to 304.2001, 28.5.2001 to 31.5.2001, 27.6.2001 to 6.7.2001, 27.7.2001 to 31.7.2001, 27.8.2001 to 31.8.2001, 18.9.2001 to 30.9.2001, 22.10.2001 to 31.10.2001, 22.11.2001 to 30.11.2001, 21.12.2001 to 31.12.2001, 23.1.2002 to 31.1.2002, 1.2.2002 to 28.2.2002 and 2.3.2002 to 23.3.2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that it was a running account and the last transaction was between 2.3.2002 to 23.3.2002. It is also contended by him that the learned Company Judge was not right in coming to the conclusion that there was no admitted liability, although Ex.A59, dt. 21.3.2001 was on record. Ex.A59 was not taken to be admitted liability by the learned Company Judge on the ground that the outstanding amount was subject to due reconciliation with the books of the respondent company. This is an agreement between the parties and it mentions, "In agreement dated 16th December, 1997 both the parties have been confirmed outstanding as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_242_LAP_2007Html1.htm</FRM> Thereafter first party confirms that outstanding principle amount due on 30th July 1998 is Rs.24,80,592/- as per the statement given by 2nd party, subject to due reconciliation with the books of The Rayalaseema Mills Ltd."

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the liability is accepted to the tune of Rs.24,80,592/- and it was accepted subject to due reconciliation with the books of Rayalaseema Mills Limited, that does not mean that the liability is acknowledged. The dispute is not with regard to the liability, but there can be dispute with regard to the actual amount which was subject to reconciliation. In this connection he relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. Vs. Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd.. The Supreme Court in this case remarked that where there was no doubt that a company owes the creditor a debt entitling him to a winding up order, but the exact amount of the debt is disputed, the Court will make a winding up order without requiring the creditor to quantify the debt precisely. The Supreme Court said,