SHENTRACON CHEMICALS LTD Vs. UNKNOWN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claim appears to be barred by the laws of limitation; at least there is a strong case made out that the claim may be barred by limitation.

(2.) THE petitioning creditor has already launched a suit for the self- same claim. That, by itself, would not disentitle the petitioner from maintaining a creditor's winding-up petition in respect of the same claim. However, it appears that by the time the statutory notice was issued preparatory to the present petition being filed, limitation may already have set in. THE transaction was for the period upto the year 1996. THEre is no dispute that the last payment made by the company, for the purpose of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was in the year 1998. THE petitioner filed its suit in the year 2001. THE petitioner obtained an ex parte decree against which an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was filed and the company enjoys an order staying the execution proceedings. THE company's application for recalling the ex parte decree has not been heard out. THE company says that it has raised the question of limitation in the suit. THE company was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and the company came out of the purview of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 in the year 2007. Such position is admitted by the petitioner. THE petitioner says that it was only late in 2010 that the petitioner came to know that the company had come out of the purview of the said Act of 1985. It was shortly thereafter, according to the petitioner, that the notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act was issued and the present petition filed.