Winding up petition maintainability is judged at filing, and later limitation of the debt does not defeat it automatically.

A winding up petition that was validly maintainable when filed does not become incompetent merely because the underlying debt later becomes time-barred before the order is made. The Court accepted that maintainability is assessed by reference to the position at presentation, not the later date of decision, and found no provision in the Companies Act requiring a different result. It also noted that relief remains a separate, fact-sensitive question and may be refused where the petition is brought for extraneous or collateral purposes.

---

---

Issues: Whether a winding up petition, validly maintainable when filed, ceases to be maintainable if the underlying debt becomes time-barred before the court passes the order.

Analysis: The petition had been dismissed on the view that the decisive point for maintainability was the date of the order and not the date of presentation. The Court approved the contrary view that there is nothing in the Companies Act to suggest that a petition properly maintainable when instituted becomes incompetent merely because the debt is later barred by limitation. The Court also noted that the question whether relief should be granted in a given case is distinct and depends on the facts, and that relief may be refused where the petition is brought for extraneous or collateral purposes.

Conclusion: A winding up petition does not lose maintainability merely because the debt becomes time-barred before the order is made; the appeal was therefore allowed.

---