Limitation for company claims under section 446(2)(b) depends on an enforceable debt at winding-up presentation.

A claim under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 must rest on a subsisting legally enforceable debt when the winding-up petition is presented. Here, the underlying chit transaction claim had already become unenforceable before commencement of winding-up proceedings, so section 458-A read with article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not revive it. The court also rejected reliance on mortgage enforcement limitation, because the application was not framed as a mortgage suit and the pleadings did not disclose an action under article 62. The application was therefore barred by limitation and not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The claim arose out of a chit transaction and the last relevant payment was made before the winding-up proceedings commenced. The official liquidator relied on section 458-A of the Companies Act, 1956 read with article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but that provision could not revive a claim which had already become unenforceable on the date the winding-up petition was presented. The attempt to treat the proceeding as one for enforcement of a mortgage was rejected because the application was not framed as a mortgage suit and the pleadings did not disclose an enforcement action under article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Conclusion: The application was barred by limitation and was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 must be founded on a subsisting legally enforceable debt on the date of presentation of the winding-up petition, and where the proceeding is not instituted as a mortgage enforcement action, the longer limitation applicable to mortgage suits cannot be invoked.

---