Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Relief.

Issue No. 1 :

The petitioner examined Lalit Mohan Bareja who was a director of the petitioner-company from its very inception. He proved the ledger entry exhibit P-1. He, in unequivocal terms, stated that the accounts were maintained by the company in the ordinary course of business and that no amount was received from the respondent against the outstanding sum before the company was wound up.

5. P. W. 2 Santokh Singh, junior technical assistant, attached to the office of the official liquidator proved the issuance of notice, exhibit P-2, and the acknowledgment due slip, exhibit P-3.

6. The respondent was afforded four opportunities to lead evidence but no evidence was produced. On November 27, 1987, an opportunity was afforded to lead evidence subject to payment of costs. The costs were not paid on the adjourned date of hearing. Consequently the evidence of the respondent was closed under orders of the court.

7. A copy of the ledger has been produced as exhibit P-l. It has been proved by P. W. 1, Lalit Mohan Bareja. From the statement of this witness, it is apparent that the account books were regularly maintained and that the ledger entries reveal that a sum of Rs. 2,476.02 is due from the respondent. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner-company is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,476.02 from the respondent. Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.