Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

2. The applicant is the official liquidator appointed in respect of the company in liquidation M/S.NGEF Limited. It was claimed that the Managing Director, KPTCL had placed purchase orders with M/S.NGEF Ltd. (in liquidation) as per the invoices furnished by the Exdirector of the captioned company in liquidation for a sum of Rs.2,72,38,000/- for the supply of erection and commissioning of transformers (2 nos) of 50 MVA capacity, one at Harohalli and one at Tataguni Substation. The respondent is said to have withheld the amount due on account of NGEF not having repaired a 20 MVA Transformer. The Applicant Company is said to have made a request in that regard and permitted it to deduct the repair charges from the bill.

3. But it was claimed that, the 2 nos. of 50 MVA transformers were not repaired. It is stated that KPTCL had stopped all payments in terms as aforesaid. Therefore, the Official Liquidator on the basis of the entries in the Books of Accounts of the company in liquidation, is said to have issued a notice dated 12.10.2004 to the respondent to remit the said sum, with interest thereon at 18% per annum. The respondent had not remitted the amount and hence the application.

4. The respondent had filed objections to the same denying the liability and contended that even if the liability could be established, it was barred by limitation in terms of Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956. The Official Liquidator had even tendered evidence in support of the claim. The Official Liquidator however later has conceded that the respondent was due to pay only against two invoices namely invoice at Serial No.3 and Serial No.6 shown in paragraph 3 of statement of objection of the respondent in tabular Form. It is these two payments alone which are now claimed at the hearing.

5. With reference to the evidence on record, the learned counsel for the respondent, however would emphasize that the two claims were clearly barred by limitation, with reference to the following dates. The Company Petition No.154/2002 was filed on 2.9.2002 and the company was ordered to be wound up on 3.8.2004. Under the general Law of Limitation the date was due as on the date of filing of the petition. Taking into account the exemption of the period contemplated under Section 458 A of the Act, the amounts were due insofar as the amounts shown at serial Nos.3 and 6, as on 6.10.2002. The claim in fact, is filed on 11.9.2008 and hence it was clearly barred by time.

6. As against which the learned counsel for the applicant would contend that as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Steel and Wire Products and others Vs. Kohinoor Rolling Shutters and Engineering Works, and others reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 179, the claim is well within time. If time is computed from the date of order of winding up of a Company and the date on which the winding up order is made, is well within time. In view of the legal position as stated by the Supreme Court which is extracted hereunder:

“3. 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 i