Antony Dominic, J.

1. Common question arises in these two appeals and therefore we dispose of both the appeals by this judgment. MFA No. 1176 of 1998 and MFA No. 1351 of 1999 arise out of the judgments and decrees in CC Nos. 489 of 1996 and 380 of 1996 respectively, both filed by the first respondent in these two appeals. By judgments and decrees dated 21st May, 1998 and 1st June, 1999 while CC No. 489 of 1996 was decreed in part, CC No. 380 of 1996 was decreed in full. It is aggrieved by these two judgments and decrees that the appellants have come up in appeals.

2. In so far as CC No. 489 of 1996, the facts are that the first respondent claimed Rs.11,800/-, towards the balance kuri instalment with interest at 12% from 31/03/1986 to 30/06/1996 to the tune of Rs.14,514/-. It was alleged that the subscriber had paid upto 52nd instalment and defaulted payments from 53rd instalment, which fell due on 05/02/1986, in relation to a kuri which commenced on 05/10/1981 and terminated on 05/12/1990. In the company claim filed by the Official Liquidator on 06/11/1990, rejecting the plea that the entire claim was time barred, the learned Company Judge held that the claimant is entitled to recover from the 90th instalment that fell due on 16/03/1989 on the ground that since winding up proceedings commenced on 09/03/1992 claimant entitlement to recover is only the dues for the immediate proceeding 3 years. Accordingly, a decree for Rs.4,200/- with interest thereon at 12% from 05/04/1989 onwards was passed in favour of the claimant.

3. In so far as the facts in the case of CC No. 380 of 1996 is concerned, the kuri in question commenced on 04/12/1981 and was prized on the same date. Accordingly, the kuri amount was received by the subscriber on 09/02/1982, executing a kuri agreement in favour of the foreman of the Company. Future subscriptions upto 51st instalment fell due on 05/05/1986 were paid and default was committed in respect of 52nd instalment that fell due on 04/02/1991 onwards. The kuri terminated on 16/12/1990 and the claim was filed by the Official Liquidator on 09/09/1996. Overruling the objection on the ground that the claim was time barred in view of the provisions contained in the Limitation Act, 1963, the learned Company Judge held that the foreman is entitled to wait until the termination of the kuri to seek recovery of the balance amount due and that as on the date of commencement of the winding up, the debt was not time barred, and that the plea of limitation raised was not sustainable. Accordingly, the claim was decreed by the learned Company Judge subject to set off Rs.3,763/-. It is aggrieved by the judgments and decrees thus passed by the learned Company Judge that these appeals are filed.

4. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that in view of the provisions contained in Art.137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the debts in question were time barred. While resisting the plea raised by the appellants, counsel for the Official Liquidator relied on the provisions contained in S.446(2) and 458A of the Companies Act.

5. S.446(2)(b) of the Companies Act provides that the Company Court has jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any claim made by or against the company in liquidation. S.458A of the Companies Act provides for exclusion of certain time in computing period of limitation and is extracted below for reference:

"458A. Exclusion of certain time in computing periods of limitation.-- Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908) or in any other law for the time being in force, in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or application in the name and on behalf of a company which is being wound up by the Tribunal, the period from the date of commencement of the winding up of the company to the date on which the winding up order is made (both inclusive) and a period of one year immediately following the date of the winding up order shall be exc