HARBANS LAL,J. - (1.) THIS is a letters patent appeal against the judgment of a learned single judge, dated November 1, 1973, in Civil Original No. 91 of 1972, by which the application of the appellant under Section 518 read with Section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called " the Act "), was dismissed.
(2.) THE appellant-company, namely, the Bharat Traders Ltd. , Sirsa, was wound up by voluntary liquidation by means of a resolution dated March 26, 1959. The respondent was an agent of the appellant-company from October 1, 1950, to December 31, 1951, entrusted with the work of sale of shares and supply of articles to the customers. In the Course of the performance of his duties, he collected some money, but failed to deposit the same in the bank account of the appellant-company or to remit the same to the latter's head office. The books of the appellant-company showed a debit balance of Rs. 1,114-15-6 against the respondent. According to the account, a copy of which is exhibit P-1, the amount due from the respondent up to December 31, 1951, was Rs. 2,582-11-6, while the amount to his credit was Rs. 1,217-12-0, Another amount of Rs. 250 was credited to the account of the respondent in 1952 and thus the amount due from the respondent was Rs. 1,114-15-6. The managing director of the appellant-company had also made complaints to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, on October 13, 1951, and on November 7, 1951, but without any result. The whereabouts of the respondent were not known for a considerable time. Ultimately, after the respondent could be traced, a registered notice was sent in October, 1971, by the voluntary liquidator The appellant-company produced Shri Amar Nath, the managing director of the company, as a witness and also the accounts regularly maintained by it in the regular Course of business.
(3.) THE learned single judge non-suited the appellant-company and dismissed the petition on the ground that the claim of the appellant-company was time-barred and that from the evidence on the record, the liability of the respondent was not established. It was held that under Article 89 of the, Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter called the " old Act"), the claim against the respondent became barred by time on the expiry of three years from the refusal to pay after the demand had been made. The claim was also held to be time-barred under Section 543 of the Act, after the lapse of five years from the date of its winding up. On merits, it was held that the accounts produced by the appellant-company were not sufficient to make out the case against the respondent under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The present appeal is directed against that judgment of the learned single judge.;