Dishonoured cheque does not constitute payment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and therefore does not save a claim from being barred by limitation.

1. This is claim petition under sub-section (2) of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 for recovery of Rs. 12,610.15 p. The Petitioner-company was carrying on finance business at Jullundar. A petition for its winding up was filed on June 9, 1969. The company was ordered to wound up by this Court in Civil Original 26 of 1969, on 9-1-1970 (Punj). The official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed the liquidator of the company. He has, therefore, filed this claim petition on behalf of the company in his official capacity.

2. The claim is that on December 27, 1962 a sum of Rs. 6,000/-was lent by the company to R. L. Soni respondent and the same was repayable with interest at 12 percent per annum which is the usual rate at which the company charged interest on loans granted by it. According to the claim petition, part payment of Rs. 594/-and Rs. 500/-were made in cash by the respondent towards principal interest in account on April 12, 1965 and May 21, 1966 respectively. Another sum of Rs. 1,000/-is said to have been paid to the company by cheque Exhibit P.7 on June 15, 1966, but the said cheque was dishonoured.

3. The claim has been contested by the respondent. According to his written statement, the respondent and one Gurcharan singh Bakhshi were partners of Messrs. Sonico Distributors and Gurcharan Singhs mother Shrimati Anup Kaur had a deposit of Rs. 8000/-with the company, out of which the sum of Rupees 6,000/-in question was drawn by the respondent on behalf of Shrimati Anup Kaur and credited to her account in the books of the respondents partnership. In fact the respondent claims that Rs. 3,000/-on one occasion and another Rs. 1,500/-on another occasion were paid out by his partnership to Shrimati Anup Kaur out of the sum of Rs. 6000/-and only Rs. 1,500/-on another occasion were paid out by his partnership to Shrimati Anup Kaur out of the sum of Rs. 6,000/-and only Rs. 1,500/-remained due to her. Though he admitted having received Rs. 6,000/-by cheque from the company vide voucher Exhibit P.1 he denied having received it as a loan and stated that he merely signed the voucher in blank on December, 27, 1962, when there was no other entry in it.

4. The company filed a replication. Wherein it was stated that Shrimati Anup Kaur did have a deposit of Rs. 8,000/-with it, but that she claimed the whole of that amount from the official Liquidator without making any mention of any withdrawal of Rs. 6,000/-out of that amount in the manner alleged by the respondent. From the pleadings of the parties, I framed the following issues:-

-

(1) Whether the claim is within time?

(2) Whether the amount in question was paid to the respondent as loan?

(3) If the principal is due to the company, what interest, if any, is the company entitled to?

(4) Relief.

Issue No. (1):

5 In view of the provisions of Section 458-A of the Companies Act, this claim petition has been filed within time after June 9, 1969, the date of presentation of the winding up petition. It remains to be seen whether the claim was within time on that date i.e. on June 9, 1969 or not. Even if the earlier payments of Rs. 594/-and Rs. 500/-are assumed to have been made by the respondent the claim would not have been within time on the date of presentation of the winding up petition. It is conceded by Mr. Kuldip Singh Keer, the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator that this claim petition can be held to be within time only if the payment of Rs. 1,000/-by cheque dated June 15,`1966, saves it from being barred by time. This being the common case of the parties, the only question that has to be answered in order to decide issue No. (1) is whether the payment by the said cheque dated June 15, 1966, saves the claim from being barred by time or not. It is claimed that the suit is within time on account of payment of Rs. 1,000/-by the said cheque by virtue of Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1963. The said provision reads as follows:-

"Where payment on account of