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 Petition involving an Inter-Corporate Deposit repayment issue. The winding-up petition was admitted, and the impugned order's grounds were disputed. The Appellant's arguments against maintainability based on limitation were rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs. The court found no basis to entertain the appeal due to the previous dismissal and rejection of arguments in a related case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Exemption application
2. Delay in filing appeal
3. Challenge to judgment in Company Petition
4. Repayment of Inter-Corporate Deposit
5. Winding up petition
6. Grounds for challenging impugned order
7. Maintainability of Company Petition
8. Barred by limitation argument

Analysis:
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.

---