Shailesh Asalraj Jain v. Himanshu Synthetics Pvt.Ltd., a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Indian
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Companies Act, 2013 s. 434
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 14
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The respondent company chosen appear despite service. We satisfied appellant pursued winding petition appeal diligently bonafide proceedings deserves excluded. We, accordingly, observe appellant prosecuting winding petition appeal Section 14 Limitation Act, 1963 excluded appellant prosecutes the ordinary remedy of suit for recovery of due…
- Para 66. Appeal fails and is dismissed with the observations aforemade.
Judgment
Shri My A M/s.Himanshu Bills client My Bills arrange clients. promising
It apparent available material respondent company denied receipt amount Rs.80,000/- alleged. The learned Company Judge satisfied defence respondent company amount Rs.80,000/- received dispute regard presentation Bill Exchange, entertaining company petition appellant pursue appropriate remedy. We hardly find any justifiable ground to take a different view.
The learned counsel appellant submitted winding petition appeal 3 excluded enable appellant pursue appropriate remedy redressal grievance. He invited attention judgment Division Bench Court Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd. v. Belapur Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd., 2004 (3) Mh.L.J. 414.
The respondent company chosen appear despite service. We satisfied appellant pursued winding petition appeal diligently bonafide proceedings deserves excluded. We, accordingly, observe appellant prosecuting winding petition appeal Section 14 Limitation Act, 1963 excluded appellant prosecutes the ordinary remedy of suit for recovery of due amount from the respondent-company.
Appeal fails and is dismissed with the observations aforemade.
No costs. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013 — s. 434; Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 14.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Sep 2004. The bench was R M LODHA, P DEVADHAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.