Sections 45F of Central Act XX of 1950 and 45-0 of Central Act 52 of 1953, which exclude certain periods from the computation of the limitation period for claims by a banking company in liquidation, are not mutually exclusive and can be relied on together to exclude different periods.

ORDER :- On 18th June 1956 Surendranath Nayak acquired 60 shares in the Agricultural and Industrial Bank Ltd., Coondapoor, now in liquidation. The shares were of the face value of Rs. 50 on which only Rs. 10 had been paid. On 4th January 1950 the directors declared these shares to be forfeited to the bank on the ground that the calls due on the shares had not been paid. On 18th February 1953 a petition was filed in this court for winding up the Bank, and, on 6th April 1953, an order was made directing that the bank be wound up.

2. On 12th January 1956 the liquidator filed a claim against Surendranath Nayak for a sum of Rs. 2400 being the amount of the unpaid calls on the 60 shares. Article 34 of the Articles of the Bank empowered the directors to charge interest on arrears of calls at a rate not exceeding nine per cent per annum. On the basis of this article the liquidator has also claimed interest at nine per cent. which, on the date the claim was filed, amounted to Rs. 1,294-3-9.

3. Mr. Kamath, learned counsel for Surendranath Nayak resisted the claim on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Counsel for the liquidator, however, relies on S. 45F of Central Act XX of 1950 and S. 45-0 of Central Act 52 of 1953. Ordinarily, under the Limitation Act the claim would have been barred within three years from 4th January 1950, which is the date on which the directors of the Bank declared that these shares had been forfeited. S. 45F of Central Act 20 of 1950, however, enacts,

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Limitation Act ....... in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or application by a banking company, the period of one year immediately preceding the date of the order for the winding up of the banking company shall be excluded."

By virtue of this section the liquidator would be entitled to exclude the one year immediately preceding 6th April 1953 which is the date on which the order to wind up the company was made.

4. Section 45 (o) (1) of Act 52 of 1953 runs :

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908) or in any other law for the time being in force, in computing the period of limitation prescribed for a suit or application by a banking company which is being wound up, the period commencing from the date of the presentation of the petition for the winding up of the banking company shall be excluded."

It will be noticed that this section differs from S. 45-F of Act XX of 1950 in two respects. In the first place, the time which is excluded is not the time commencing from the day on which the order of winding up was made, but the time commencing from the day on which the petition to wind up the company was presented. In the second place, the period of time excluded is not one year but the entire period commencing from the date of the presentation of the winding up.

5. The argument of the learned counsel for the liquidator was this. By reason of S. 45-F of Act XX of 1950 the claim was alive on 30th December 1953 when the Act 52 of 1953 came into force. Nothing in Act 52 of 1953 affects the life or enforceability of that claim. On the other hand, the Act gives a further period of limitation.

6. He also referred to S. 6 of the General Clauses Act to support this contention. That section, so far as is now material, runs as follows :

"Where .....any Central Act ...... made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment ...... then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not -

......... .............. ............ ..........

(c) affect any right, ...... acquired.....under any enactment so repealed;

......... ............... ............ .........

(e) affect any ...... remedy in respect of any such right ..... as aforesaid.

When Act 52 of 1953 was passed the remedy which the liquidator had against Surendranath Nayak was alive, and, that remedy was kept alive by reason of S. 6 of the General Clauses Ac