TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with specific allegations that the petitioner supplied PVC compound and other raw materials to the respondent under various invoices during May, June and July, 1976 and in respect of the said supplies, a sum of Rs. 1,64,914.41 was due and payable by the respondent-company as detailed in the petition; that there was practice of payment of 18 per cent, interest per annum ; that again in the year 1984, there was supply made under three invoices, amounting to Rs. 1,755.52, Rs. 2,100 and Rs. 3006.75 on May 10, 1984, May 11, 1984 and July 21, 1984, respectively; that many a reminder was made ; that the respondents unconditionally promised to pay the outstanding in 10 instalments and confirmed the same in its letter, dated September 19, 1991 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 1,26,914.41 was the definite one and necessary details have been given in the annexure annexed to the petition. It is not the case where transactions were denied and even payments have been made. There was payment of Rs. 38,000 made and there was acknowledgment of liability by letter, dated September 19, 1991 and thus, in the instant case, there was evidence for the transactions, which were not denied and liability was also acknowledged by a communication from the general manager (F and A) on behalf of the company and it was sufficient to point out the liability, which was definite. When statutory notice was issued, it was not replied and further, the non payment and non reply to the notice would be pointing to the inability of the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was accompanied by the letter, the person, who issued the letter, was competent to acknowledge the liability and under these circumstances, the view taken by the learned single judge is not correct and thus, the statutory requirements for winding up the company are actually satisfied and under these circumstances, the appeal has got to be allowed, setting aside the order of the learned single judge. Learned counsel, in support of his contentions, has relied on the following decisions : (a)Mrs. C Simon v. Arogiasami, AIR 1915 Mad 242. (b) David Sutherland Clark v. Rose Grimshaw, AIR 1923 Lahore 481. (c) Nathu Singh v. Girwar Singh, AIR 1929 All 657. (d) Kasturchand Jiwaji v. Manekchand Devchand, AIR 1943 Bom 447. (e) Tulsiram Shrikis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not necessary. Even assuming that there was balance of Rs. 1,26,914.41 as claimed by the petitioner and though it was definite, the court is able to see that certain issues have got to be decided by adducing evidence of both sides and only on appreciation of the same, the court could pass the order for winding up. It is clear from the counter filed by the respondent that it was barred by time. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that what is available under the situation is section 25(3) of the Contract Act. It is true, the letter dated September 19, 1991, was out of time, but by operation of section 25(3) of the Act, even after the period of three years, if it has been done, it has got to be accepted and it was well wit....