SANJIB BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THREE points had been urged in the company's affidavit. The first of them has been given up in the course of submission.
(2.) OF the two points which have been pressed in resisting an order of admission on this winding up petition, the first is that the writing on which the petitioner's claim is founded and the endorsement thereon allegedly made on behalf of the company did not constitute a promise to pay within the meaning of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, 1872 and since such writing was admittedly executed after the original debt was barred by limitation, the acknowledgment would not save limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The other, if slightly more feeble, ground urged was that the accountant who appears to have admitted and acknowledged on behalf of the company, had no authority to do so. The letter that has been relied upon is one addressed by the petitioner to the company on September 28, 2004. The petitioner requested the company to confirm that a sum of Rs. 13,79,300 was due and owing from the company to the petitioner as at March 31, 2004.
(3.) THE words 'we confirm' appear at the foot of the letter with a dotted line below suggesting that the signature should be put on such dotted lines on behalf of the company in confirmation. However, there appears to be a writing in hand of the company's accountant with a rubber stamp of the company and a further rubber stamp giving the permanent income -tax account number of the company. The writing in hand is spread over three short lines and reads as follows: (Rs.)Principal amount due 5,00,000Interest payable up to 31 -3 -2004 5,69,250Total payable as on 31.3.2004 10,69,250.;