IMPORTANT POINT
The provisions contained in Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be construed to mean that even a time barred date or claim which was not enforceable on the date of winding up, would stand revived, once a winding up application is filed and order is made by virtue of Section 458A of the Companies Act.

Headnote:Company Act, 1956-Section 458A (as inserted by Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960)-Limitation Act, 1963-Article 137-Whether on account of Section 458A of the Companies Act, the period of Limitation for filing any suit or application gets extended, and if so, whether a claim which was barred on the date, the application for winding up was filed, stands revived on account of an order of the Court in the winding up proceedings? Karnataka High Court has recorded its conclusion that the provisions contained in Section 458A of the Companies Act does not confer a fresh cause of action and, therefore, if the time of the claim is already barred under relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, then the appointment of official liquidator on an application being filed for the winding up of the company, would not revive the barred date of claim-Whether correct? (Yes)-Contrary view of other High Courts is incorrect-Appeals dismissed.
Held : On a plain reading of the provisions contained in Section 458A of the Companies Act, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid provision merely excludes the period, during which a company was being wound up by the Court from the date of the commencement of the winding up till the order of winding up is made and an additional period of one year immediately following the date of the winding up. In other words, in respect of a legally enforceable claim, which claim could have been made by the company on the date on which the application for winding up is made, could be filed by the official liquidator by taking the benefit of Section 458A of the Companies Act and getting the period of four years to be excluded from the period of three years, as provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The Legislature, by way of an amendment, brought into force the provisions of Section 458A, so that an official liquidator, who is supposed to be in custody of the assets and liability of the company, would be able to file a claim on behalf of the company, which was legally enforceable on the date of the winding up, after excluding the period, indicating under Section 458A of the Companies Act, so that the company or its shareholders will not suffer any loss. But by no stretch of imagination, the said provisions contained in Section 458A can be construed to mean that even a barred date or a claim which was not enforceable on the date of the winding up, would stand revived, once a winding up application is filed and order is made by virtue of Section 458A of the Companies Act. We, therefore, affirm the view taken by the Karnataka High Court under the impugned Judgment and dismiss these appeals. There will be no orders as to costs. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, CJI.-These appeals, directed against the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court, raise a common question as to whether on account of Section 458A of the Companies Act, which was inserted by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960, the period of limitation for filing any suit or application gets extended, and if so, whether a claim which was barred on the date, the application for winding up was filed, stands revived on account of an order of the Court in the winding up proceedings. In the impugned judgment, the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court has recorded its conclusion that the provisions contained in Section 458A of the Companies Act does not confer a fresh cause of action and, therefore, if the time for the claim is already barred under the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, then the appointment of official liquidator on an application being filed for winding up of the company, would not revive the barred date. It appears that the aforesaid view of the Karnataka High Court is in agreement with the decision of the Madras High Court in 63 Company Cases 749 and is in variance with the two Full Bench decisions, one of Delhi High Court in AIR 1978 Delhi 158 and the other of Kerala High Court in AIR 1989 Kerala 41. In the absence of any authoritative pronouncement of this Court on the question, it would, therefore, be necessary to examine the different views expressed by different High Courts as well as the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, and to find out which view is correct.

2. Under the provisions of the Companies Act, a winding up proceeding commences by presentation of a petition as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 441 of the said Act and at any time, after the presentation of a winding up petition, the Court may appoint the official liquidator. Under Section 446 of the Act, once an official liquidator is appointed, then all legal proceedings against the company can be proceeded with only with the leave of the Company Judge and subject to such terms as the Company Court imposes. Under sub-section (2) of Section 446, it is the winding up Court which gets the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding by or against the company as well as any claim made by or against the company. Section 458A merely excludes the time in computing the period of limitation for any claim. The aforesaid section is extracted herein-below in extenso for better appreciation of point in issue :

"Sec. 458A. Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908) or in any other law for the time being in force, in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or application in the name and on behalf of a company which is being wound up by the Court, the period from the date of commencement of the winding up of the company to the date on which the winding up order is made (both inclusive) and a period of one year immediately following the date of the winding up order shall be excluded."

3. In the case of Faridabad Cold Storage & Allied Industry vs. Official Liquidator of Ammonia Supplies Corpn. (P) Ltd., AIR 1978 Delhi 158, the question for consideration was as to what is the period of limitation for a claim filed under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act and what is the starting point of the said period of limitation. It was held by the Full Bench of Delhi High Court that any such application in respect of a claim filed under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act is covered by the residuary article under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and the period of limitation is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. The Court further held that the right to file a claim petition under Section 446(2) in respect of a claim enforceable at law on the date of the winding up order, arises on the date the winding up order is passed. The period of limitation of three years would, therefore, be from the date of the winding up order, after giving full effect to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document