Dismissed
M Padmavathi, v. M/s. Krishna Priya Power PrivateLimited
Telangana HCCP/105/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY COMPANY…
What the court decided
AI extract
SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY COMPANY…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
COMPANY PETITION NOs.103, 104 AND 105 OF 2015
DATED:21-9-2015
C.P. NO.103 of 2015
Between:
M. Appala Narashima Raju … Petitioner
And
M/s. Krishna Priya Power Private Limited
Hyderabad … Respondent … Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. B.S. Shivaji, for Mr. Krishna Kishore Kovvuri COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. M.P. Chandramouli
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER:
These company petitions raise common issues of fact. The petitioners claim that they have lent money to the respondent company represented by its Managing Director of the time in the year 2003, that as the respondent has not repaid the money they have addressed letters to then Managing Director of the respondent company in the year 2008 and that immediately thereafter he has acknowledged the debt and assured the petitioners that the company will return the petitioners’
investments together with interest as and when their project is approved and financed by the Banks/financial institutions. The petitioners have also relied upon a similar acknowledgement issued on 30.9.2010.
On behalf of the respondent, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed wherein it is inter alia stated that the new management has taken over the respondent on 15.8.2013 and that the petitioners, who are close relatives of then Managing Director, colluded with him and brought into existence the purported correspondence between them and the then Managing Director. It is further pleaded that the respondent has no creditors at all and that the alleged debt, even if due by the previous management, is barred by limitation.
The petitioners have filed the copies of the purported ledgers for the period from 1.3.2003 to 31.3.2003 which show that the amounts allegedly paid by them through cheques have been shown under credit entry of the company. The petitioners have not filed proof of payment through cheques, such as extract of their bank account showing debiting of the amounts from their accounts and crediting the same in the accounts of the respondent. Even the so called ledgers filed by the petitioners are unsigned and unattested. This Court is of the opinion that based on such unauthenticated documents, the petitioners’ plea that they have made payments to the respondent cannot be accepted. In the absence of proper evidence to show that the payments were made to the respondent, no finding could be rendered by this Court that the respondent is indebted to the petitioners.
As regards the alleged acknowledgements of the previous Managing Director representing the old management, learned counsel for the respondent raised a serious doubt about these documents and submitted that they are brought into existence by playing fraud. Alternatively he has submitted that if the amounts were advanced by the petitioners in the year 2003, the debt is barred by limitation in 2006, and that even if the acknowledgement is given by the then Managing Director in the years, 2008 and 2012, they will not save the limitation. Under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, acknowledgement of debt will extend limitation provided such acknowledgments was given before the expiry of the limitation. Admittedly the purported acknowledgements were issued by the then Managing Director in the year 2008 by which time more than five years had elapsed from the time of payment of the loan amount. As the limitation for recovery of money is three years from the time it falls due, the purported acknowledgements given beyond the period of limitation
cannot extend the limitation.
For the above reasons, the petitioners failed to prove that the respondent is liable to pay the legal and valid debt to them and hence they are not entitled to the relief claimed in the company petitions.
The company petitions are accordingly dismissed.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
21-9-2015
bnr
M. Appala Narashima Raju
M/s. Krishna Priya Power Private Limited
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court