TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereby the appellant was directed to pay the Official Liquidator a sum of Rs. 1,47,797.60 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 30-8-1984, till the date of payment. 2. The court heard learned counsel on either side. 3. The claim was made by the official liquidator by making the instant application stating that a sum of Rs. 1,47,797.60 along with interest of Rs. 1,53,298.65 from 30-8-1984, thus totalling to Rs. 3,01,096.25, along with interest till date of payment is payable by the appellant herein ; that the company in liquidation was ordered to be wound up by an order dated 7-9-1987, in Company Petition No. 73 of 1985 ; that the erstwhile managing director of the company has delivered the statement of affairs on 14-3-1988; that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the view and passed the order referred to above, which is the subject-matter of challenge. 6. The only question that would arise for consideration would be whether the claim made by the respondent liquidator was barred by time as contended by the appellant and whether the respondent was entitled for the claim as made by him. 7. Advancing arguments in support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant in short would submit that the entire claim was barred by limitation; that there is nothing to show that the transactions were continuous, mutual, open and current account; that there was no accept-able documentary evidence; that what was all filed was only the details given in Annexure "A"; that at no stretch of imagination, it can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that under the circumstances, the entire claim should have been rejected, and hence, the order of the learned Single Judge has got to be set aside. 10. Contrary to the above, it is contended by the respondent official liquidator that it is an admitted position that the company went on liquidation; that actually there was a winding up order that was passed on 7-9-1987; that the liquidator took possession; that the erstwhile managing director of the company delivered statement of affairs in the year 1988; that the only available materials which came to his custody were account books and records of the company in liquidation; that in any case, whenever a claim is made, the independent invoices if not taken into custody, could not be filed;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....behalf of the appellant from March, 1983, to August, 1984, which fact was not disputed by the appellant; that the company went on liquidation, and winding up orders were passed on 7-9-1987; that while the official liquidator took over possession, he received the statement of affairs from the erstwhile managing director on 14-3-1988; and that he also got custody of certain books and records of the company in liquidation on 21-1-1988. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the main contentions that were raised by the appellant's side, were two-fold. Firstly, it was, barred by limitation, and secondly, the main and principal documentary evidence was not filed. The learned Single Judge did not agree with either of the contenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments come to his hands pending the proceedings, he would produce so which would talk of the bona fide. Further he has also gone through all those documents and they were all subjected to the audit of the company. The learned Single Judge has pointed out that the available documents were actually gone into. Once the official liquidator has come forward with a specific case to state that claims were made from March 1983 to August 1984, and the aggregating balance was Rs. 2,55,533.85, and the appellant has paid Rs. 1,07,736.25, this particular part payment as to the aggregated amount on 14 occasions was not disputed. What was available in the hands of the official liquidator by way of account books have been perused, and a claim has been made....