Claim Time-Barred; Winding-Up Petition Dismissed: Court Suggests Civil Suit for Debt Recovery in Disputed Debt Case.

The petitioner's claim was deemed time-barred as the court found no valid acknowledgment of debt by the respondent-company, dismissing the argument for an extended limitation period under s. 18 of the Limitation Act. Additionally, the winding-up petition was dismissed as it was not maintainable against the solvent respondent-company, and the court advised the petitioner to pursue a civil suit for debt recovery, emphasizing that winding-up petitions are inappropriate for disputed debts.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the claim of the petitioner is time-barredRs.
2. Whether the winding-up petition is maintainable or the appropriate course for the petitioner was to file a suit for recovery of the amountRs.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the claim of the petitioner is time-barredRs.

The respondent-company and HPCL contended that the claim is time-barred, as the purchase order dated January 11, 1990, and subsequent supplies were completed by September 12, 1990. The agency commission should have been paid within ninety days, making the claim enforceable within three years, but the petition was filed on May 21, 1997. The petitioner argued that the claim was acknowledged from time to time, extending the limitation period u/s 18 of the Limitation Act, citing a letter dated July 18, 1994, as the last acknowledgment. However, the court found that the letter did not constitute an acknowledgment of debt by the respondent-company, as it did not admit the jural relationship of debtor and creditor, but rather indicated that HPCL was responsible for the payment. Therefore, the petition was deemed time-barred.

Issue 2: Whether the winding-up petition is maintainable or the appropriate course for the petitioner was to file a suit for recovery of the amountRs.

The court held that the winding-up petition was not maintainable against the respondent-company, a profit-making and solvent entity with substantial financial resources. The respondent-company disputed its liability, and HPCL cited government guidelines prohibiting such payments. It was emphasized that winding-up petitions should not be used merely as a means of debt recovery when the debt is bona fide disputed. The appropriate course for the petitioner was to file a civil suit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

---