Court rules for petitioner-company in recovery claim, orders respondent to pay Rs. 19,500 with interest.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner-company in a case involving a recovery claim of Rs. 19,500 from the respondent-company. The court held that the petition was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, allowing the company to claim the amount. Despite the respondent's objections and lack of substantial evidence to refute the claim, the court ordered the respondent to pay the claimed amount with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The judgment emphasized the significance of accurate record-keeping, burden of proof, and compliance with statutory limitations in company-related disputes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Barred by Limitation
- Entitlement to Claimed Amount
- Cash Payment Dispute
- Relief

Analysis:

Barred by Limitation:
The petition under section 446(2) read with section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956, was filed by the petitioner-company for the recovery of Rs. 19,500 from the respondent-company. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding limitation, arguing that the cause of action had become barred by time. However, the court held that the petition was within the prescribed period of limitation as per section 458A of the Companies Act. The court determined that the company was entitled to the benefit of exclusion of the period from the date of the winding-up petition till the passing of the winding-up order, allowing the petition to be filed within the specified timeline.

Entitlement to Claimed Amount:
The petitioner-company, through the official liquidator, presented evidence to support its claim. The managing director and an assistant from the office of the official liquidator testified, and various documents were submitted. The court noted that the statement of affairs filed with the official liquidator showed the amount due from the respondent-company. The respondent's conflicting statements and failure to provide substantial evidence to refute the claim led the court to rule in favor of the petitioner. The court accepted the petition and ordered the respondent to pay the claimed amount of Rs. 19,500 with interest.

Cash Payment Dispute:
Regarding the disputed cash payment of Rs. 500 made on November 20, 1988, the court found that even if the payment was not accepted, the petition was still within the limitation period. The court accepted the petitioner's assertion that the payment was received, as it was duly recorded in the company's books of account. The respondent's failure to provide convincing evidence to counter this claim further weakened their position.

Relief:
The court granted the relief sought by the petitioner, ordering the respondent to pay Rs. 19,500 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from a specified date. Despite the respondent's objections and conflicting statements, the court found in favor of the petitioner based on the evidence presented and the lack of substantial rebuttal by the respondent.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner-company, holding the respondent liable to pay the claimed amount along with interest. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining accurate records, burden of proof, and adherence to statutory limitations in company-related matters.

---