S. PRITAM SINGH Vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR GOLCHA PROPERTIES (P) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed on behalf of S. Pritam Singh under rule 177 read with rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1950. It has been alleged that the petitioner advanced money to M/s. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. (now in liquidation). The General Manager of the said Company executed the three Hundis in lieu of the said deposit and promised to pay to the petitioner. The particulars of these Hundis are as under: - -

(2.) NOTICE of this application was given to the Official Liquidator who has submitted his written reply, where in he stated that the name of Sardar Pritam Singh is shown in the list of creditors at item No. 1579 Page No. 70 for Rs. 76(sic)7.97 P. and item No. 1600 page No. 71 for Rs. 3790.03 P. annexed with the statement of affairs filed by the Ex management of the Company in Liquidation. He has further submitted in his reply that notices under R 148(2) of the Rules were issued to the petitioner at his last known address under certificate of posting on 26 -5 -69 and notices in this respect were also issued and published in the Indian Express of 29 -5 -69 and Nav Bharat Times of 24 -5 -69.

(3.) IT is evident from the affidavit of Gurusewak Singh that the petitioner went to England in 1968 and did not return there from. This fact finds corroboration from the affidavit of Pritam Singh which has been produced before me by his counsel Mr. N.K. Jain. It is further proved by the affidavit of Gurusewak Singh that the petitioner came to know from Mohan Singh in the month of March, 1975 that payments were made to three creditors whose claims had been admitted by the Official Liquidator. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of Gurusewak Singh. It appears that the petitioner could not submit his claim in time on account of having on knowledge of any notice or notification regarding submission of claims to the Official Liquidator of the Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. (in liquidation). The petitioner has reasonably explained the delay in filing his claim and, in my opinion, he is not guilty of any laches or negligence in submitting his claim in time.