VENKATARAMAN, J.

This appeal cam up for hearing in the first intense before Rajgopalan J. and he referred the matter to a bend since so far there is no authoritative pronouncement of this court on the question involved. The question involved is one of limitation in respect of a claim up in bay the appellate, Muthalibu, in the windingup proceedings of the Pioneer Board Mills Ltd., Dindigul, He advanced a sum of Rs. 375 on January 12, 1952. The application for worn-down up was preferred on November 22, 1954. The company was ordered tone would up on October 14, 1955. Reckoing the period of three years from the dates of the debts the claim was barred by the limitation on October 14, 1955, but no on November 22, 1954. The learned Dstrict Judges held that the claim was barred by limitation on October 14, 1955, but no on November 22, 1954. The learned District Judges held that the claim was barred by limitation and the appellant preferred this appeal. Ragagopal J. referred thtr matter for decision to a bench as stated

The claim itself was put in on March 26, , 1956. The matter has to e decided with reference to the Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913) which was the act in force on that date though there is no real difference weather that act is applicable or the act now in force (the 1956 act) is applied. Hence it will be sufficient if we refer to the provision of the 1913 Act. indicating within brackets the corresponding provision of the present Act. By the word "Act" in the rest of this judgement we mean the 1913 Act

The company in question is an insolvent company and section229 is the section whcib direcltu applies. We shall quote both section 228 and section 229 (section 528 and 529 of the 1956 Act)

"228. In every winding up (subject inthe case of insolvent companies to the application in accordance without provision of this Act of the law of insolvency) all debts payable on a contingency, and all claims against the company present or future certain or cotangent shall be admissible to proof against the company, a just estimate being made so far as possible of the value of such debts or claims as may be subject to any contingency or for some other reason do t bear a certain value229. In the winding up of an insolvent company the same rules shall prevail and be observed with ragged to the respective rights of secured and unsecured credotprs and to debts provable and tothe valuation of annuity and future and contingent liability as are in force for the time being under the law of insolvency with respect to the estates of persons adjudged insolvent; and all persons who in any such case would be entitled to prove for for and receive dividends out of the asset of the company may come in under th winding up and make such claims against the company as they respectively are entitled to by virtue of this section." *

It will be seen that under action 229 the provision of the Provincial Insolvency ACt (v of 1920) are made automatically applicable in the matter of proofs. Section 34(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act reads

"Save as provided b sub-section (I) al;l; debts and liabilities, present or future certain or coating which the debtor is subject when he is adjudged an insolvent to to which he may become subject before his discharge by reason of any obligation incurred before the date of such adjudication, shall be deemed to be debts provable under this Act." *

This provision read by itself would permit proof only of debts not barred at the date of the adjudication. BUt this has to be read along with section 28 (7) of the Provincial Insolvency Act which reads

"An order of adjudication shall relate back to and take effect from, the date of the presentation of the petition on which it is made." *

In fact it is settle law under the Provincial Insolvency act that we can admit proof of a claim which is not time barred on the date of the presentation of the petition of adjudication even though the claim may become barred nt he actual date