The material date for determining whether a claim is within limitation in a winding up proceeding is the date of the winding up order, not the date of the presentation of the petition for winding up.

Tek Chand, J.

1. This is a petition made by the Official Liquidator under Rules 96 and 97 of the Company Rules framed by this Court, praying for the settlement of list of creditors attached with the petition. The creditors, in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Official Liquidator, filed their claims which were considered by him. Certain claims of the creditors were partly accepted and partly rejected by the Official Liquidator and their list is annexure "C" attached with the petition. Annexure D contains list of claimants whose claims were rejected in entirety by him. By this judgment, I propose to dispose of the cases of six claimants who have some common features. These claimants are:

(1) Shri A.K. Bhalla.

(2) His wife Shrimati Yash Kumari Bhalla;

(3) Shri Bhagwan Das,

(4) Dr. Tara Chand.

(5) Messrs. J.C. Bhalla and Co; and

(6) Messrs. Ram Chand Puri and Sons.

2. Shri A.K. Bhalla claimed an amount of Rs. 55,133/15/. The Official Liquidator allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 17,161/2/9 and did not admit the claim for the balance, i.e. Rs. 37,972/12/3, and the reason urged was that the claim was time barred and unproved.

3. The claim of Shrimati Yash Kumari Bhalla was for Rs. 11,081715/- and it was rejected in entirety on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

4. The total claim of Shri Bhagwan Das was for Rs. 68,500/-. The Official Liquidator allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 9,616/10/9 and rejected the claim to the extent of Rs. 58,883/ 5/3, on the ground that it was time barred and unproved.

5. Dr. Tara Chand claimed an amount of Rs. 7,588/6/- and this claim was rejected for want of proof.

6. Messrs. J.C. Bhalla and Company claimed a sum of Rs. 1,666/- on account of audit fee and this claim was rejected to the extent of Rs. 1,631/- on the grounds that it was time barred and unproved.

7. Messrs. Ram Chand Puri and Sons claimed a sum of Rs. 2,359/7/9 and it was also rejected on the grounds that it was time barred and unproved.

8. In the case of first five claimants, the following issue was framed on 20-4-1956, by Dulat, J.

"What is the proper amount due from the Company to the claimants?"

9. In the case of Messrs. Ram Chand Puri and Sons, Palshaw, J. on 10-8-1956, framed the undernoted issue:

"Whether the sum of Rs. 2,359/7/9 is due to the claimant from the Company?"

10. Mr. B.R. Tuli, learned counsel for the claimants respondents, has raised three contentions. In the first place, he contends that the claims had been wrongly rejected on the ground that they were barred by limitation. He argued that the material date for determining whether the period of limitation had expired, was the date when petition for winding up was made and not when the winding up order was passed. In this case the petition for winding up was made on 21-4-1952 by Shri A.K. Bhalla, and the winding up order was passed on 23-9-1953. According to the Official Liquidator, the claimant had to show that his claim was within limitation on the date of winding up order. The contention on behalf of the claimants is that if the claim was within limitation on 21-4-1952 when the petition for winding up was presented, the claim cannot be rejected as time barred. This is the main controversy before me.

11. Another point urged before me is that in the case of first four claimants, the period of limitation is extended in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act as their claims had been duly acknowledged by the Company in the balance sheet, Exhibit P. W. 3/1.

12. On the first point as to the material date for purposes of limitation, my attention has been drawn by Mr. Tuli to the provisions of Sections 168, 171, and 227 of the Indian Companies Act (No. VII of 1913). Section 168 lays down that a winding up of the company by the Court shall be deemed, to commence at the time of the presentation of the petition for the winding up. We are not concerned in this case with the provisions of Section 204, according to whic