https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311983 A winding-up petition cannot be maintained on a debt that is already barred by limitation, because a time-barred claim is not a presently payable debt under Sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act. The Court also held that instalment defaults under the lease gave rise to separate causes of action, so limitation ran from each default and the contractual compensation clause did not convert all future instalments into one recoverable debt. The proposed money-lending objection failed because the arrangement was treated as a leasing transaction, with no sufficient basis to apply the licensing bar under the Bombay Money Lending Act. en-us Mon, 14 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jan 2024 13:01:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311983 A winding-up petition cannot be maintained on a debt that is already barred by limitation, because a time-barred claim is not a presently payable debt under Sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act. The Court also held that instalment defaults under the lease gave rise to separate causes of action, so limitation ran from each default and the contractual compensation clause did not convert all future instalments into one recoverable debt. The proposed money-lending objection failed because the arrangement was treated as a leasing transaction, with no sufficient basis to apply the licensing bar under the Bombay Money Lending Act. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 14 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311983