The appeal established that limitation periods under the Companies Act must be strictly adhered to, and the court cannot extend them beyond statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator.

2. This appeal has been filed under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, The Act seeking to set aside the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the learned Company Judge in C.A No.119/2023.

3. The Official Liquidator represents the company in liquidation namely M/s Natural Textiles Private Limited. A demand notice was issued by the company in liquidation to the appellant on 19.12.2011 calling upon it to make certain payments of dues. On 18.04.2012, a petition seeking winding up of the company in liquidation was filed. It appears that two other petitions seeking winding up of the company in liquidation were also filed on 17.06.2013 and 21.08.2014. By a common order dated 31.07.2015, an order of winding up was passed. The Official Liquidator was appointed. It appears that on 01.07.2022, the Official Liquidator received the statement of affairs filed by the ex-directors of the company in liquidation. On 19.04.2023, on the basis of the statement of affairs and the old demand notice dated 19.12.2011, the Official Liquidator filed the aforesaid company application seeking payment of alleged dues of Rs.6,48,42,813/-. Objections were filed by the appellant inter alia, raising the plea of limitation.

4. By the impugned order dated 14.03.2024, the application filed by the Official Liquidator under the provisions of Section 446(2)(b) of the Act was held to be within limitation.

5. The learned company Judge referred to the provisions of Section 458A of the Act and observed that prior to receipt of the statement of affairs from the ex-directors of the company in liquidation, the Official Liquidator had no knowledge of the affairs of the company and the fact that the dues were outstanding from the appellants. It was noted by the company Judge that under the provisions of Section 454 of the Companies Act, a period of 21 days from the date of the winding up order or within such extended time not exceeding three months from that date as the Official Liquidator or the Court may for special reasons, appoint. The Court observed that there is a statutory obligation on the part of the ex-directors to file their statement of affairs within the said period and it is on that basis that under Section 458A, the limitation has been extended for a period of one year from the date of winding up apart from the period from the date of filing of the winding up petition to the date of passing of the winding up order. It was accordingly held that the statement of affairs having been filed on 01.07.2022, the Official Liquidator had initiated the claim process on 21.04.2023, which is within the exclusionary period under Section 458A, after the date of winding up order.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has emphatically stated that the learned Judge has by means of the impugned order, extended the period of limitation which is impermissible in the eyes of them. He has submitted that the order of the company Judge is beyond jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Steel & Wire Products v. Kohinoor Rolling Shutters & Engg. Works, (2003) 1 SCC 76 (para No.4). A judgment dated 17.09.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in OSA No.18/2024 and a judgment of a learned single Judge in the case of NGEF Ltd (in Liqn) vs. The Managing Director, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 8567 (paragraph Nos.8 and 9) has been relied upon in support of his submission.

7. Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator on the other hand has strongl