The enactment of S.45-O of the Banking Companies Act does not retroactively affect claims that are valid under prior limitation periods established by S.45-F.

1. Debtors Nos.8, 11, 13 in the fourth list, submitted by the liquidator, object to their inclusion in the said list or to the settlement of their debts mainly on the ground that the debts due by them are barred by limitation. I shall take each item separately.

2. Debtor No.8: This debtor is the Firm N.M.T.S. The claim is made by the liquidator of the bank against M.K. Durjoy Kishore Dev Barma and the heirs of the deceased Abdul Barik Khan, who died on 6-10-1951. Durjoy Kishore Dev Barma and Abdul Barik Khan were the Directors of the said Firm. The debt is in respect of account No.121, From the said account it is seen that an amount of Rs.14,000/- was advanced on 25-10-1949 and towards this debt various payments were being made, the last payment being on 26-12-1950 of a sum of Rs.178/- leaving a balance of Rs.2,900/-and odd. It is this amount which has now swelled up with interest to the claim of Rs.5,700/- and odd which is claimed by the liquidator as on 1st April, 1955. The bank was ordered to be wound up by this Court on 8-9-53 on an application for winding up filed on 27-3-53.

3. Now the contention of Durjoy Kishore Dev Barma and the heirs of Abdul Barik is that the present debt being part of the amount advanced on 25-10-1949 had become barred by limitation on 25-10-1952, the period of limitation being only three years under Art.57 of the Limitation Act , and that therefore both on the date of the application for winding up namely 27-3-1953 and on the date when the order for winding up was passed by this Court on 8-9-1953, this debt had already become barred. It was pointed out that under the Banking Companies Act , 52/1953 S.45 - O would apply to this case. Under the said section in the case of a Banking Company which is being wound up the period commencing from the date of presentation of the petition for the winding up of the Banking Company shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation prescribed for a suit or application. It was argued that as this debt had become barred on 27-3-1953, the date of the application for winding up, the liquidator cannot proceed against them.

4. For the liquidator it was pointed out that Act 52 of 1953 containing the present S.45 - O came into force only on 30-12-1953, while the petition for winding up was filed on 27-3-1953 and the order for winding up was passed by this Court on 8-9-1953, that at that time Act 20 of 1950 containing the special period of limitation S.45 - F was in force and that it was that section of the said Act which would apply to the present debt. S.45 - F of Act 20 of 1950 is as follows:
"45F. Special period of limitation - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Limitation Act , 1908 or in any other law for the time being in force, 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".

5. If this section were to apply, the liquidator can exclude one year immediately preceding 8-9-1953 the date of the winding up order and therefore this debt which would have become barred normally on 25-10-1952 under Art.57 of the Limitation Act would be kept alive the one year to be excluded immediately preceding the winding up order would start on 8-9-1952. It was pointed out further for the liquidator that S.45 - O of Act 52 of 1953 which came into force after the winding up order was passed cannot have retrospective effect so as to curtail the pe