JAYASIMHA BABU J.

This is a petition for the winding up of the respondent company under section 433(e) and (f) read with sections 434(a) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. This petition was filed on April 8, 1994. The question of limitation looms large in this petition. The petitioner, Sri Vijayalakshmi Art Productions, a registered partnership firm, claims to have advanced to the respondent company between July 2, 1985, and March 8, 1990, large sums of money aggregating to Rs. 71, 00, 000. The petitioner has stated that the said sums were advanced at the request of the respondent and were to carry interest at mutually agreed rates. The petitioner has, at para 5 of the petition stated :

"The receipt of the above loan was acknowledged by the respondent under various correspondence, the last of which is dated January 21, 1994, by the respondent's chartered accountant on behalf of the respondent company, and by one of the directors of the respondent company on January 24, 1994. Curiously in letter dated January 24, 1994, the respondent company confirmed only a sum of Rs. 19, 03, 500 standing to the credit of the petitioner in the respondents' books of account. Needless to state that this is in contravention of the earlier admission made by the respondent company and it is clearly an act of afterthought. "

According to the petitioner,"..... as on February 28, 1994, a sum of Rs. 71 lakhs by way of principal and Rs. 1, 41, 25, 771 is due by way of interest" *

. The petitioner thus claims to be a creditor of the company for a sum of Rs. 2, 12, 25, 771.

The documents filed along with the petition were, apart from the copy of its registration certificate, copies of the legal notice sent by the petitioner's counsel on February 28, 1994, reply thereto on March 23, 1994, by the respondent's counsel, the letter dated January 21, 1994, from the respondent's chartered accountant, and of the letter dated January 24, 1994, from the respondent. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner produced certain further documents on August 9, 1994. The documents so produced are copies of letters exchanged between one of the partners of the petitioner firm, and the respondent between June 24, 1985, and April 2, 1990 ; receipts said to have been issued by the respondent between July 2, 1985, and March 8, 1990, in favour of Venkataraju (5), Damu (5), Damu Productions (32) and the petitioner (22). The petitioner also produced copies of the balance-sheet of the respondent for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992, copies of the assessment order under the Income-tax Act made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax made on March 30, 1992, regarding the respondent's income for the assessment years 1988-89, schedule of the respondent's sundry creditors for the years ended March 31, 1991, and March 31, 1992, as also copies of letters from the petitioner's counsel to the respondent's counsel sent between April 9, 1994, and September 14, 1994.Between April 2, 1990, and January 24, 1994, there is no document to show the extent of the respondent's indebtedness to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that any sums were paid to the petitioner at any point of time prior to the institution of this petition by way of repayment of any part of the loan or the amount of interest thereon, although, according to the petitioner, it commenced advancing substantial sums to the respondent in June, 1985, and for 5 years kept on advancing amounts till March, 1990, without receiving any interest on any part of the sum so advanced. The agreement to pay interest at 24 per cent. is said to be contained in a letter dated June 24, 1985, from the respondent. The petitioner relies on the statement of account annexed to the letter dated April 2, 1990, from the respondent wherein it is stated that a sum of Rs. 71 lakhs is due to the petitioner as on March 31, 1990.

The acknowledgment of liability to the petitioner thereafter is nowhere shown, in that sum of