Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.31 seconds)Section 18 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 122 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 434 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 433 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Mazboot Packers And Engineers Company vs Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce ... on 12 October, 1998
39. Mr. Kavina has further relied on the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Mazboot Packers and Engineers Company v. Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Limited, [1999] 95 Company Cases 579 wherein, after observing that the petition had been filed on November 3, 1997 after the expiry of a period of more than six years from the date of refusal by the respondent Company to refund the amount of security, the Court held that the claim of the petitioner Company, therefore, on the face of it had become barred by time as on the date of presentation of the petition. Therefore, there was no legally recoverable debt within the meaning of Section 433(e) of the Act.
Kalra Iron Stores vs Faridabad Fabricators (P.) Ltd. on 31 October, 1990
41. Mr. Kavina has further relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Kalra Iron Stores v. Faridabad Fabricators P. Ltd., [1992] 73 Company Cases 337 for the proposition that the Company's plea that the Managing Director of the Company had taken away the Company's cheque book and rubber stamp, and had issued the cheques, was one of substance and the same should be taken into consideration while considering the winding up petition against the respondent Company.
N. Ethirajulu Naidu vs K.R. Chinnikrishnan Chettiar on 2 August, 1974
42. Mr. Kavina has further relied on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of N. Ethirajulu Naidu v. K.R. Chinnikrishnan Chettiar, wherein the Court has held that the distinction between an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and a promise within the meaning of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act is of great importance. Both have the effect of creating a fresh starting point of limitation, if they are in writing signed by the party or his authorised agent. But while an acknowledgment under the Limitation Act in order to be valid, must be made before the expiry of the period of limitation, a promise under Section 25, Sub-section (3) of the Contract Act, to pay a debt may be made after the debt has become barred by limitation.