Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) This company petition has been filed by Dhandhania Brothers (P.) Ltd., with its registered office at 4, Middleton Street, Ground Floor, Calcutta, for winding up Khaitan Overseas and Finance Ltd., with its registered office at Somdutt Plaza (11th Floor), the Mall, Kanpur, under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). It is alleged that the company took a loan for Rs. 25 lakhs from the applicant- company. The debt is still due with interest, and at present, a total amount of Rs. 43,15,818 is still due which has not been paid in spite of the reminder and statutory notice. The loan was given to Hostombe Spinals Ltd., 234/3-A, A.C.J. Bose Road, Calcutta, which subsequently merged in Khaitan Overseas and Finance Ltd, vide order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 27-5-1997 in company petition No. 44 of 1996 connected with Company Petition No. 19 of 1996 by which the interest of the creditors was protected and safeguarded by the assets of the transferee-company. In Company Petition No. 78 of 1999 an amount of Rs. 28,21,565 has been claimed to be due from the company.
(2.) Notices were issued on 23-9-1999 in response to which a counter-affidavit of Narendra Kumar Jha, Chief Manager (Legal), of the company, has been filed, on 10-4-2000. An amendment application to amend the company petition was filed on 21 -5-2001 by the applicant-company which has been allowed vide order dated 30-7-2001.
(3.) Shri R.P. Agarwal, appearing for the company, has raised preliminary objection referred to in paragraph 2 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Narendra Kumar Jha. It is stated by him that the company petition, when filed, was not supported by proper affidavit and, further, it has not been filed by a competent person. In respect of the third objection, namely, that the petition has been filed in respect of the loan which is time-barred, Sri R.P. Agarwal has submitted that, after the amendment of the company petition and the documents filed along with the amendment application, the loan cannot be said to be time-barred when the company petition was filed and, as such, he is not pressing objections in this regard.;