Delay in submission of a claim by a creditor in a winding-up proceeding may be condoned if the creditor can reasonably explain the delay and is not guilty of any laches or negligence.

1. - This is an application filed on behalf of S. Pritam Singh under rule 177 read with rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. It has been alleged that the petitioner advanced money to M/s. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. (now in liquidation). The General Manager of the said Company executed the three Hundis in lieu of the said deposit and promised to pay to the petitioner. The particulars of these Hundis are as under.

(a) H 4464/LF 20/26 dated 23.11.65 for Rs.3000/-, due on 29.2.65

(b) BB/F.20/65/H-1722 dated 23.6.65 for Rs.3000/-, due on 20.02.65

(c) BB/F 221/65/H.3011 dated 2.9.65 for Rs.3000/-, due on 1.3.66.
It has been alleged in the petition by the petitioner that he shifted to England in 1968 to join his family. It has further been alleged that the winding up of M/s. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. was ordered by this Court on 10.5.1968. The petitioner subsequently learned from Mohan Singh and then from Gursewak Singh that the Official Liquidator of the above Company had invited claims of the creditors by publishing a notice in the newspaper. According to the notification the creditors were allowed to submit their claims upto 15.6.1969. This time was further extended upto 31.1.1970. It has been alleged by the petitioner in his petition that no such notification came to his notice. It has been further alleged in the petition that under rule 148(2) of the Companies (Court) Rules, it is obligatory on the part of the Official Liquidator to issue notice to every person mentioned in the statement of affairs as creditor, but he did not receive any such notice purporting to be under rule 148(2). As the petitioner did not come to know of any notification or notice regarding submission of his claim to the Official Liquidator of the above Company he could not submit his claim within the time allowed. It has also been alleged by the petitioner, that he came to know to March, 1975, through his son-in-law Mohan Singh, who is at England, that payments are being made to the creditor whose claims have been passed by the Official Liquidator. It has been submitted that the petitioner could not submit the required affidavit of proof of debt and other relevant papers to the Official Liquidator, nor could be submit his claim petition before his Court earlier. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was in no way negligent in submitting his claim within time and the delay caused in not submitting the affidavit in proof of debt and the claim petition be condoned, his claim petition and the affidavit in proof of debt be accepted and the Official Liquidator be directed to accept and adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioner.

2. Notice of this application was given to the Official Liquidator who has submitted his written reply, where in he stated that the name of Sardar Pritam Singh is shown in the list of creditors at item No. 1579 Page No. 70 for Rs. 7657.97 P. and at item No. 1600 page No. 71 for Rs. 3790.03 P. annexed with the statement of affairs filed by the Ex.management of the Company Liquidation. He has further submitted in his reply that notices under Rule 148(2) of the Rules were issued to the petitioner at his last known address under certificate of posting on 26.5.69 and polices in respect of were also issued and published in the Indian Express of 29.5.69 and Nav Bharat Times of 25.5.69.

3. I have gone through the record and heard the arguments. In support of his contentions raised in the application, the applicant has submitted an affidavit of his power of attorney Shri Gurusewak Singh who deposed on oath that Pritam Singh went to England to join his family in December, 1968 and since then he has not come to India. The aforesaid deponent has further deposed on oath that the delay in submitting the claim petition occurred on account of Pritam Singh having gone to England in 1968 and no notice having been received by him regarding submission of claims by the creditors of the Company.

4. It is evident from the affidavit of G