Money claims by a liquidator may be brought by application, but limitation follows the substantive claim, not Article 137.

A money claim by an official liquidator can be pursued by application before the company court under section 446(2)(b) because the provision confers concurrent jurisdiction and the term "claim" covers actionable money claims or debts; the liquidator is not confined to a regular suit. Limitation depends on the substantive nature of the claim, not the form of proceeding, so the suit article applicable to that claim governs, with time computed after excluding the period under section 458A. Article 137 is only residuary and does not automatically apply to every liquidator's application. On the facts, article 18 applied and the claim was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a money claim by the official liquidator against a person could be made before the company court by application under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, instead of by suit; and (ii) which article of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs such a claim, and whether article 137 applies in all such cases.

Issue (i): Whether a money claim by the official liquidator against a person could be made before the company court by application under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, instead of by suit.

Analysis: Section 446(2) confers concurrent jurisdiction on the company court over suits, proceedings, and claims by or against the company. The word "claim" in clause (b) was read in the context of winding-up proceedings as referring to actionable money claims or debts, not to claims to title or possession. The provision was held to give the liquidator an option to proceed by application in money-claim matters, rather than confining him to a regular suit.

Conclusion: The application was maintainable, and the liquidator could proceed by application for such a money claim.

Issue (ii): Which article of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs such a claim, and whether article 137 applies in all such cases.

Analysis: The governing article depends on the nature of the claim and the legal provision under which it is made, not merely on the form of proceeding chosen. Where the claim is of a kind that would ordinarily be the subject of a suit, the suit article applicable to that claim governs limitation, with the period computed after excluding the time under section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956. Article 137 is only residuary and is not automatically attracted to every application filed by the official liquidator. On the facts, the claim was one for labour charges falling within article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the application was filed beyond time even after the statutory exclusion.

Conclusion: Article 18, not article 137, applied, and the claim was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: A money claim by the official liquidator may be pursued by application in the company court, but limitation must be tested by the nature of the underlying claim and the proper Limitation Act article, with statutory exclusion under section 458A; on the facts, the application failed as barred by time.

Ratio Decidendi: In winding-up proceedings, an application under section 446(2)(b) for a money claim is an alternative procedural mode, but limitation is governed by the article applicable to the substantive nature of the claim, not by article 137 merely because the proceeding is styled as an application.

---