2019 (1) TMI 628 - HC - Companies Law

Exemption application allowed with exceptions, appeal's delay condoned; winding-up petition admitted, appeal dismissed.

The exemption application was allowed with exceptions, and the appeal's delay was condoned. The judgment dismissed the appeal challenging the Company ... Appointment of provisional liquidator - Appellant inter-alia denies the issuance of the communication dated 4th March, 2013 and argues that the Company Petition is not maintainable on the ground that the amount alleged to be due from the Appellant is barred by limitation - Held that:- We have already dismissed the Company Appeal No. 30/2018 in the case of ICRI Research Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bon Lon Securities Ltd. [2019 (1) TMI 520 - DELHI HIGH COURT] recording our reasons for rejecting the arguments and contentions raised by the Appellant. The said reasons need not be reiterated in the present petition and it would suffice by observing that the reasons in the said appeal are also applicable to the present appeal - appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Exemption application2. Delay in filing appeal3. Challenge to judgment in Company Petition4. Repayment of Inter-Corporate Deposit5. Winding up petition6. Grounds for challenging impugned order7. Maintainability of Company Petition8. Barred by limitation argumentAnalysis:1. The judgment begins with an exemption application being allowed, subject to exceptions. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned based on reasons stated in the application, and the application is disposed of accordingly.2. The appeal challenges the judgment passed in Company Petition No. 896/2015, which was decided along with Company Petition No. 861/2015. The Appellant and Respondent are identified, and the facts of the case involving an Inter-Corporate Deposit of Rs. 75 lacs are detailed. The Appellant issued post-dated cheques for repayment, sought extensions, and eventually faced dishonored cheques leading to outstanding dues.3. The Respondent sought balance confirmation, and legal notices were exchanged before the winding-up petition was filed. The learned Company Judge admitted the petition, appointed a provisional liquidator, and the grounds for challenging the impugned order were found to be identical to another case. The Appellant disputed the communication date and argued against the maintainability of the Company Petition based on limitation.4. The judges dismissed a previous Company Appeal, noting that the arguments raised by the Appellant were rejected. These reasons were deemed applicable to the present appeal, leading to the dismissal of the current appeal with no costs awarded. The judgment concludes by stating that there is no reason to entertain the present Appeal based on the previous dismissal and rejection of arguments.