1 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.573 OF 2006 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.7 OF 2005 Ravinder K.Nayar. ...Appellant. Vs. Nayar Electronics Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent. --- Mr.V.J.Shah i/b. M/s.Pandya & Poonawala, for Appellants. Mr.S.P.Kanuga, for Respondent. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.R.KINGAONKAR,JJ. DATED: 21st April, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 6.7.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Company Petition no.7 of 2005. The learned Single Judge has rejected the petition. The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 2 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, alleging that the Respondent-company is unable to pay its debt. He claimed that the company is indebted to him to the tune of Rs.18,23,077.33 ps. And he also claimed that it is an admitted liability. The learned Single Judge found that prima facie it appears that the claim is barred by law of limitation. 2. We have heard the learned the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. In the company petition, the petitioner nowhere states as to at what point of time and when the loan was advanced by him. As the petitioner does not disclose the point of time when the loan was advanced as also the point of time at which the loan was repayable, then obviously there is no material placed on record by the petitioner to show as to when the period of limitation starts. If the point of time at which the limitation starts is itself not disclosed, there is no question of any document amounting to acknowledgment. It is claimed that there is a document viz. entry in the Balancesheet of the respondent which amounts to 3 acknowledgment. As the petitioner does not disclose as to when the period of limitation starts, there is no question of any entry in any balancesheet amounting to acknowledgment so as to extend the period of limitation. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that though he does not disclose as to when the loan was advanced, the respondent-company has stated that the loan was advanced in the year 1996, and he has made statement in his petition that the loan was shown in the balancesheet of every year as outstanding. In our opinion, the statement that the loan was shown outstanding in the balancesheet for every year is not admissible in evidence because it is a statement on the contents of the document which the petitioner was in a position to produce before the Court. However, the only balancesheet produced by the petitioner on record, is the balancesheet of the year 2003. If the loan was given in the year 1996, an entry in the balancesheet of the year 2003 will not amount to acknowledgment so as to extend the period of limitation. It further appears that the persons who 4 controlled the company are all members of a family and the petition was filed because there are dispute among the family members. 3. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, there is no room to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.)