Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications made to court under special Acts, including the Companies Act, 1956, and prescribes a limitation period of three years for such applications.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been placed before the Full Bench in view of the orders of Shankar and T. P. S. Chawla, JJ. dated 17th October, 1974 along with Company Appeal No. 2 of 1969.

( 2 ) HOWEVER, during the hearing it was noticed that the point involved in the present appeal was somewhat difierent from the points urged during the hearing of the Company Appeal No. 2 of 1969 and therefore, this appeal is being dealt with by a separate order.

( 3 ) THE present appeal is directed against the order dated 25th August, 1972 passed by P. N. Khanna J. on the application of the Official Liquidator under Section 446 (2) (b) and Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 against M/s. A. R. Chadha and Co. and four others.

( 4 ) THE learned Company Judge had taken the view that the claim petition against A. R. Chadha and Company (respondent No. 1 in the claim petition) was barred by time and unenforceable under clause (b) of Section 446 (2) of the Companies Act and dismissed the application against the said respondent. The application of the Official Liquidator against respondents 2 to 5 in the said claim petition was, however, directed to come up for further consideration.

( 5 ) THE present appeal has, therefore, been filed only against M/s. A. R. Chadha and Company.

( 6 ) M/s R. C. Abrol and Co (P) Ltd was ordered to be wound up by order dated August 19, 1966 passed by the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi, on a petition dated March 4, 1966 filed for this purpose.

( 7 ) ON August 18, 1971 the Official Liquidator of the said Company filed petition under clause (b) of sub section (2) of Section 446 and 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as "the Act") against A. R. Chadha and Company and four others by way of Company Application No, 428 of 1971.

( 8 ) THE claim petition was filed, inter alia, against the respondent (respondent No. 1 in the Company Application) for the recovery of Rs. 1078 10 on the basis of open and current account in the books of the Company in liquidation on the basis that the last entry in the said account is on April 10, 1965.

( 9 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 in his reply disputed the claim. A preliminary objection was raised that the claim of the company in liquidation at any rate was barred by limitation.

( 10 ) ON behalf of the respondent Company it had been urged before the learned Company Judge that the claim of the company in liquidation was for the price of the goods alleged to have been sold to respondent No. 1. It was therefore, governed by Article 14 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. 1963 under which the limitation was three years from the date of the deliver of the goods. Even if the period required to be excluded, the claim for the recovery of the amount would be barred by time.

( 11 ) IN reply thereto, Mr. A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submitted before the learned Company Judge that the application before him was not a suit. It was merely an application under the Companies Act for which no period of limitation was prescribed. The only article in the Schedule of the Limitation Act which could be said to apply is Article 137 but in a series of decision the view had been expressed that this Article related only to application under the Court of Civil Procedure. Article 14 relied upon by Mr. Vijay Kishan according to Mr. Jain, "created a bar for a suit and not for an application". No other Article of the Limitation Act being applicable to an application under section 446 of the Companies Act there was no bar of limitation at all.

( 12 ) THE learned Company Judge took the view that the word "claim" in clause (b) of Section 446 (2) means a claim enforceable at law. Unless therefore, the claim is legally enforceable, it cannot be entertained by or against the Company under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 446 of the Act. The learned company Judge further took the view that Clause (b) of section 446 (2) of the Act has not reopened and made enforceable t