M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by the official liquidator under S. 446 (2) (b) of the companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for an order directing the respondents to jointly and severally pay to him the sum of rs. 2323-50 being the debt due by them to M/s. Unico Trading and Chit Funds (India) (P) Ltd. , (in Liquidation ).

( 2 ) THE aforementioned Company was ordered by this Court to be wound up on 4-2-1977 in Coy. Petn. No. 7/1975 filed on 3-10-1975.

( 3 ) THE details of claims of the Official liquidator and the resistance to the same by the respondents may be briefly stated as follows:

( 4 ) THE 1st respondent S. H. Lohati of poona (Pune) was a member of the chit Group B. E. I having Chit No. 15. The value of the chit was Rs. 2500. At the auction held for that chit group in the Pune Branch of the Company in liquidation he was the highest bidder on 23-8-1973. He received the prize amount on 8-10-1973 and on the same date executed a promissory note for rs. 1437-50 agreeing to pay interest at 12% per annum. Respondents 2 and 3 as sureties joined in the execution of the promissory note and other documents connected therewith. The Official liquidator issued notices to the respondents calling upon them to pay the sum of Rs. 2323-50 on 1-5-1980. Respondents appear to have replied the notices denying their liability. In the result this application is filed by the Official Liquidator on 19-8-1980. The claim is as follows:"chit Value. Rs. 2,500-00 Less: Subscription paid upto 8-10-1973 rs. 1,062-50 Balance: Rs. 1,437-50 add: Interest at 12 per cent per annum from 8-10-1973 to 3-2-77 Rs. 573-50 interest at 6 per cent per annum from 4-2-1977 to 5-8-1980 the date of this application rs. 302-50 Notice charges Rs. 10-00 Total: Rs. 2,323-50"

( 5 ) THE respondents have entered appearance and filed their objection statement through Counsel. They do not admit the claim based on the promissory note dated 8-16-1973. The 1st respondent denies receipt of consideration. Respondents have questioned the jurisdiction of this Court as they all reside at pune and the cause of action admittedly arose at Pune. Respondents have also contended that the application is barred by time and therefore the application is liable to be dismissed with costs.

( 6 ) IN the light of the pleadings as above the matter was set down for enquiry on 6-3-1981. On that day, Shri chandrasekhar V. Joshi, of the Pune bar, appearing for respondents submitted that the respondents give up all their defence except the one relating to question of limitation and the applicartion therefore may be disposed of solely on that question. Accordingly arguments were heard on the question of limitation assuming that the respondents had no other defence against the claim.

( 7 ) THEREFORE, the only point for determination is whether the application filed on 22-8-1980, 6 years 10 months and 14 days after the date of pronote would be within time, regard being had to S. 458-A of the Act and Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

( 8 ) SHRI Joshi has argued that all that S. 458-A of the Act provides, having regard to the clear and unambiguous language of the section, is the exclusion of specified periods mentioned in the section for the purpose of computing the period of limitation despite provisions to the contrary in the Indian limitation Act or any other law for the time being in force for presenting a suit or an application in the name and on behalf of a Company which is being wound up by the Court and as such the official Liquidator could only exclude the period between the presentation of the petition and the making of the winding up order by the Court plus one year in computing the period of limitation under the Indian Limitation Act for enforcing a money claim under a promissory note or even under Art. 137 of the Indian Limitation Act which is only 3 years. According to the learned Counsel the periods to be excluded are the period between 3-10-197

Click Here to Read the rest of this document