TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 962
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Palwal Expressway Project etc. The petitioner has on receipt of purchase orders duly supplied the materials to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent and raised invoices for the materials supplied. The aggregate value of the material supplied amounts to Rs. 12,12,01,709/-. Upon receipt of the invoices, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent has made several part payments aggregating to Rs. 9,42,67,485/-. However, a total of Rs. 3,95,39,326/- remained as arrears due and payable by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent as on 20.06.2012. It is clarified by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as on 31.03.2014, a sum of Rs. 2,69,34,224/- is due and payable by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. 3. A statutory demand notice was sent on 22.06.2012 upon the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. The same was duly received by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent but the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent failed to acknowledge the same. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a winding up petition being CP No.471/2012 against the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. However, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent in its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluding that of Full Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court in Nallathambi Nadar Chellakannu Nadar v. Ammal Nadachi Chellathankom Nadachi & Ors., AIR 1964 Mad. 169. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has however relied upon the affidavit acknowledging the liability that was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent in CP No.471/2012 to contend that there is a clear acknowledgement of liability. He further submits that in 2012 payments have been received from the respondent which shows acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of section 19 of the Limitation Act. 7. In the course of arguments, it was put to the learned counsel for the respondent as to whether under the scheme that was filed before this court for demerger of the respondent company from its parent company, there is an acknowledgement of dues payable to the petitioner. The answer was in affirmative. Hence, it has been accepted that in the scheme of demerger, there is an acknowledgement of debt payable to the petitioner as on July, 2011. Under the scheme of demerger, all liabilities regarding business and execution of constructions project are transferred to the demerged company i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g signed by, the person making the payment." Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,-" (a) where mortgaged land is in the possession of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or produce of such land shall be deemed to be a payment; (a) where mortgaged land is in the possession of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or produce of such land shall be deemed to be a payment;" (b) "debt" does not include money payable under a decree or order of a court. (b) "debt" does not include money payable under a decree or order of a court." 11. Hence, where payment on account of a debt is made before the expiration of the period of limitation to pay the debt, a fresh period of limitation is computed from the time when the payment was made. In the present case respondent made payment on 25.01.2012 for a sum of Rs. 13,94,257.98/- towards pending invoices. This payment is a clear acknowledgement of the debt payable by the respondent to the petitioner and in terms of section 19 of the Limitation Act would extend the period of limitation 12. The respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in Nallathambi Nadar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., however, indicate the existence of a jural relationship between the parties such as that of a debtor and creditor and it must appear that the statement is made with the intention to admit such jural relationship. Such intention can be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission and need not be expressed in words." Where the person making an admission of liability is not a debtor, there can possibly be no jural relationship between him and the person to whom he is making the admission. If, therefore, in the present case at the time when Sivasankaran Thampi made the statement as to the subsistence of the mortgage in his plaint as he was not a mortgagee, there could be no jural relationship between him and the other party so as to constitute his statement, as an acknowledgment of liability on the part of the mortgagee as to the subsistence of the mortgage. Secondly the kind of jura relationship that should exist is that the person making the acknowledgment should be under an existing liability to the other party. ..... 17. The requirement that the person acknowledging should have an interest which would suffer by that acknowledgment at the time when it is made is a r....