1. This application is filed by the Official Liquidator under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Rule 6 and 7 of Companies (Court) Rules 1959s whereunder the O.L seeks for the following reliefs:-

1) to delete para Nos 9 (a), (b), (d), (e), & (f) in the points of the claims in C.A.No.130/2010;

2) to delete para Nos.10, 11 & 12 in the points of claims in C.A.No.130/2010;

3) to delete para Nos.3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 in the prayer column in C.A.No.130/2010;

4) to insert the following paragraphs in the prayer column after prayer (8) in C.A.No.130/2010 as :-

9) to direct the Ex-directors to make good the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- jointly or severally as described in para 9(g) above to the Official Liquidator together with interest @ 18% p.a or any other rate as this Honourable Court may fix with effect from the date of winding up;

10) to direct the Ex-directors to make good the amount of Rs.32,66,631/- jointly or severally as described in para 9(g) above to the Official Liquidator together with interest @ 18% p.a or any other rate as this Honourable Court may fix with effect from the date of winding up;

11) to direct the Ex-directors to make good the amount of Rs.18,53,116/- jointly or severally as described in para 9(i) above to the Official Liquidator together with interest @ 18% p.a. or any other rate as this Honourable Court may fix with effect from the date of winding up;

12) to direct the Ex-directors to make good the amount of Rs.2,83,674/- jointly or severally as described in para 9(j) above to the Official Liquidator together with interest @ 18% p.a. or any other rate as this Honourable Court may fix with effect from the date of winding up;

13) to direct the Ex-directors to make good the amount of Rs.7,58,175/- jointly or severally as described in para 9(k) above to the Official Liquidator together with interest @ 18% p.a. or any other rate as this Honourable Court may fix with effect from the date of winding up;

3. Objections to the said application has been filed and it is contended that O.L is seeking to incorporate the amendment by way of adding additional prayers in C.A.No.130/2010 which are barred by limitation and therefore such amendment is impermissible.

4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, namely, Sri K.S.Mahadevan, counsel for the O.L and Sri G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. It is the contention of Mr.Krishna Murthy that provision of Section 543(2) of Companies Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is a self-contained Code whereunder limitation has been prescribed for filing an application for misfeasance or breach of trust, which can be filed not only by the creditor or the O.L but also by a contributory of the company in liquidation and as such he would contend that provisions of Section 458-A of the Act cannot be red into for the purpose of the application being considered under Section 543(2) of the Act and the exclusion clause found in Section 458-A cannot be made applicable to a proceeding initiated by the O.L or by such of those persons as is enumerated under Section 543 of the Act to contend that one year period can be excluded for the purpose of computation of period of limitation of five years prescribed under subsection (2) of Section 543 of the Act. He would elaborate his submission by contending that words used in Section 458-A, which has a non-obstante clause, is referable only to the provisions of Limitation Act or limitation prescribed in any other law which is in force namely when a suit or application is filed on behalf the company and if the Parliament in its wisdom was desirous of including the provisions of Section 543 under this exclusion clause, it would have said so in clear terms and on account of the words “notwithstanding anything contained in any of the provisions of this Act” being conspicuously absent in Section 458-A, said provision cannot be made applicable to the application in question and as such he contends that one year perio