also perused the record and the impugned order. The case of the appellant is that the amount aggregating Rs.7,45,000/- was advanced by the appellant to the respondent between 28 January 2004 to 16 December 2004 and the said amounts had became repayable from 28 January 2009 to 16 December 2009, and in making repayment, the company was to pay to the appellant double the amounts received by it. It is to be noted that there is no material whatsoever to accept this assertion of the appellant that there was some agreement between the parties that the money which was advanced by the appellant to the respondent would be required to be paid in double and after a period of five years. Moreover, though the amounts were advanced during the period from January 2004 to December 2004, the amount was claimed for the first time only after six years that is in the year 2010 by issuing a statutory notice to the respondent. Thus, for almost about six years, there was no demand raised by the appellant to call upon the respondent to repay the said amounts. This issue goes to the root of the matter to consider whether jurisdiction under the Companies Act needs to be exercised. The learned Single Judge thus would be right in observing that prima facie it appears that the claim itself was barred by limitation and hence the
