IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dharmesh Sharma, J.
Re - M/s Dimension Investment & Securities Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
. - Respondent
CO.PET. 15 of 2010
Decided On : 15-12-2023
Companies Act - Recovery of Amount - Section 446 - 458A - The court discussed the provisions of Section 446 and 458A of the Companies Act, 1956, which deal with the recovery of amounts by the Official Liquidator and the exclusion of certain time in computing periods of limitation. The court highlighted the overriding effect of Section 458A over the provisions of the Limitation Act and emphasized that the period of limitation for claiming recovery commences from the date of the winding up order and is extended by an additional year. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 458A, which led to the dismissal of the application for recovery of the amount claimed by the Official Liquidator.
Fact of the Case:
The Official Liquidator sought recovery of an amount from a debtor of the company (in liquidation) under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. The debtor had failed to refund the amount paid by the company (in liquidation) for the purchase of certain modular kitchens and wardrobes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for recovery of the amount claimed along with interest was barred by limitation in terms of Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956, and consequently dismissed the application.
Issues: The key issue was whether the application for recovery of the amount claimed by the Official Liquidator was barred by limitation under Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application for recovery of the amount claimed along with interest was barred by limitation in terms of Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956, as the period of limitation commenced from the date of the winding up order and was extended by an additional year.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application moved by the Official Liquidator for recovery of the amount claimed along with interest, citing that it was barred by limitation in terms of Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956.
JUDGMENT
CO.APPL. 1841/2017
1. The present application has been moved under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 [The Act] on behalf of the Official Liquidator [OL] against a debtor of the company (in liquidation) i.e., M/s Grandeur Interiors (P) Ltd., seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- as principle, with interest @18% per annum till the date of realization, along with the Administration Expenses incurred by the Official Liquidator.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, in the instant matter arising out of an application under section 433 & 434 of the Act, respondent namely, M/s Dimension Investment & Securities Ltd., was ordered to be wound up vide order of this court dated 03.06.2011, and thereby an Official Liquidator attached to this court has been appointed as its Liquidator.
3. Pursuant to the directions of this court, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office [SFIO] embarked on an investigation into the monetary transactions undertaken by the company (in liquidation), and submitted its report in this regard on 07.03.2012 with the office of the OL, which inter alia brought to the notice of the OL that the company (in liquidation) had paid a sum of Rs.80,00,000/-, as advance payment to the respondent/debtors - M/s Grandeur Interiors (P) Ltd., for the purchase of certain modular kitchens and wardrobes. It was reported that no such kitchens or wardrobes were supplied by the debtor M/s Grandeur Interiors (P) Ltd. to the company (in liquidation) and neither was the amount of Rs.80,00,000/- refunded. Further, it was the case of the applicant/OL that such amount was illegally transferred to the debtor company, by the Ex-Director of the company (in liquidation) - Mr. Uday Dutt, who did not have the authority to do so. It was brought out that there was no evidence to suggest that the company (in liquidation) required such kitchens/wardrobes and since the same were not supplied by the respondent/debtor, the respondent/debtor is not entitled to retain the amount paid to it as advance payment, and should therefore, refund the sum of Rs.80,00,000/- along with interest @ 18 per cent per annum till the date of realization.
SUBMISSIONS:
4. On behalf of the applicant/OL, it has been submitted that although a notice was served upon the respondent/debtor company on 12.07.2012, and thereafter, on 01.06.2017 to pay the amount of Rs.80,00,000/-, the debtor M/s Grandeur Interiors (P) Ltd. has failed to do the needful and has neglected to refund the said sum to the applicant company.
5. On the other hand, a reply has been filed on behalf of M/s Grandeur Interiors (P) Ltd. along with supporting affidavit of its Director dated 26.09.2018 wherein the application is opposed. It stated on behalf of the respondent/debtor that the order for the supply of modular kitchens/wardrobes was placed in the month of April 2018 and the payment in this regard was made on 10.04.2008; and thereafter, an order for the goods was placed by the respondent company with its counter-part in Italy, and it has been averred in the the reply filed by the respondent/debtor the Director of the company (in liquidation) failed to take delivery of the goods. Thus, claiming that there was no breach of contract by the debtor/respondent, it is submitted that the period of limitation for the claim of recovery would begin from the date the payment was made, and that such period expired on 10.04.2011, which was even prior to the order dated 03.06.2011, vide which the company (in liquidation) was ordered to be wound up, and thus, the claim is barred under Section 458A of the Act.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION:
6. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the record, in view of the chronological sequence of events leading to filing of this application, it would be expedient to refer to Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956, which reads as under:
"458A. Exclusion of certain time in computing periods of limitation.-
Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908)
Karnataka Steel & Wire Products v. Kohinoor Rolling Shutters & Engg. Works
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation for claiming recovery under the Companies Act, 1956, commences from the date of the winding up order and is extended ....
The application filed under Section 235 of the Companies Act was time-barred, with the provision of the Banking Companies Act not reviving already expired claims.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the dissolution of a company in liquidation.
Claims for costs incurred during liquidation are distinct from debts owed to creditors under the Companies Act.
The enactment of S.45-O of the Banking Companies Act does not retroactively affect claims that are valid under prior limitation periods established by S.45-F.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Companies Act, Banking Regulation Act, and the Limitation Act were analyzed to determine the applicability of the prescr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956, allowing for the dissolution of a company when the affairs have been ....
Rejected time-barred claims cannot be revived post-limitation by invalid acknowledgments or COVID exclusions; approved schemes during liquidation bind stakeholders, extinguishing non-included liabili....
The sale of property during winding up proceedings is void if executed without court sanction and with fraudulent intent to evade creditors' claims.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.