Bombay High Court Dismisses Winding Up Petition for Time-Barred Debt Under Companies Act, 1956. Claim for Goods Supplied in 2006-2007 Held Barred by Limitation as Petition Filed Beyond Three Years from Last Payment in 2011.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 86
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Nasir Amin Hungund, filed a winding up petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 against M/s. Glasspaane Aluminium (I) Pvt. Ltd., claiming that the respondent company was unable to pay its debts. The petitioner alleged that between 2006 and 2007, he sold and delivered goods to the respondent, and that the respondent made various payments between 1st April 2006 and 13th July 2011, totaling Rs.28,83,330/-, leaving a balance of Rs.24,01,215/-. The petitioner issued a statutory notice on 11th February 2012 demanding Rs.32,98,552.76 ps., to which the respondent sought documents. The petition was filed in 2015. The respondent contended that the claim was time-barred as the last payment was made in July 2011 and the petition was filed beyond three years. The court examined the ledger account and found that the last payment was on 13th July 2011. The court held that under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for filing a winding up petition is three years from the date when the debt becomes due. Since the petition was filed in 2015, more than three years after the last payment, the claim was clearly barred by limitation. The court dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Limitation Act - Winding Up - Time-Barred Debt - Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court considered whether a winding up petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 is maintainable when the debt is claimed to be barred by limitation. The petitioner supplied goods between 2006-2007 and last payment was made in July 2011. The petition was filed in 2015, beyond three years from the last payment. The court held that the claim is clearly barred by limitation and the winding up petition cannot be entertained. (Paras 1-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a winding up petition based on a debt that is alleged to be time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963 can be maintained.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The winding up petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Limitation Act
  • 1963
  • Article 137
  • Winding up petition
  • Debt
  • Time-barred
  • Companies Act
  • 1956
  • Section 433(e)
  • Section 434
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (04) 1

Company Petition No.419 of 2015

2017-04-05

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Mr. Manoj P. Gholap for the Petitioner; Dr. A. Chandrachud with Ms. Nupur Awasthi i/b Consulta Juris for the Respondent

Nasir Amin Hungund

M/s. Glasspaane Aluminium (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Winding up petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought winding up of the respondent company and payment of alleged outstanding debt.

Filing Reason

Respondent failed to pay the balance amount for goods supplied between 2006 and 2007.

Issues

Whether the debt claimed is barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Whether a winding up petition can be maintained on a time-barred debt.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that goods were supplied between 2006-2007 and payments were made up to July 2011, leaving a balance of Rs.24,01,215/-. Statutory notice was issued in February 2012. Respondent contended that the claim is time-barred as the last payment was in July 2011 and the petition was filed in 2015, beyond three years.

Ratio Decidendi

A winding up petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 is not maintainable if the debt is barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The period of limitation for such a petition is three years from the date the debt becomes due.

Judgment Excerpts

The claim of the petitioner is clearly barred by law of limitation. The petition is dismissed.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed Company Petition No.419 of 2015 seeking winding up of respondent. Respondent opposed on ground of limitation. Court heard arguments and dismissed petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 1956: 433(e), 434
  • Limitation Act, 1963: Article 137
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Winding Up Petition for Time-Barred Debt Under Companies Act, 1956. Claim for Goods Supplied in 2006-2007 Held Barred by Limitation as Petition Filed Beyond Three Years from Last Payment in 2011.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Invalid Scheduled Tribe Certificate Order — Committee Failed to Consider Relevant Evidence. Scrutiny Committee's Order Quashed for Non-Consideration of Father's School Leaving Certificate and Other...