Winding-up claims, limitation and recovery of company payments were decided on jurisdiction, timing and lack of proof of misuse.

The company court retained jurisdiction over claims arising in winding up, and the official liquidator could institute proceedings without separate sanction. Limitation for a claim under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was computed from the winding-up order, with the period from commencement of winding up to that order, plus one year thereafter, excluded under article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963; the claim was therefore within time. On the merits, however, payments towards leave encashment and supervision charges were not treated as recoverable because similar payments had been made in the company's internal practice and no fraud or adverse conduct was shown; interest also did not survive once recovery was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim; (ii) whether the petition was maintainable without sanction of the company court; (iii) whether the claim was barred by limitation; and (iv) whether the company was entitled to recover the amounts paid towards leave encashment and supervision charges, and interest thereon.

Issue (i): Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

Analysis: The jurisdictional objection had already been tried as a preliminary issue and was answered against the respondents. The claim was within the competence of the company court dealing with the winding up of the company.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition was maintainable without sanction of the company court.

Analysis: The official liquidator had been appointed as provisional liquidator, and therefore was competent to institute the proceedings on behalf of the company in liquidation.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled rule that, for a claim under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, the period of limitation runs from the date of the winding up order, and the period between the commencement of winding up and the winding up order, together with one year immediately following the winding up order, is excluded while computing limitation under article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (iv): Whether the company was entitled to recover the amounts paid towards leave encashment and supervision charges, and interest thereon.

Analysis: The payments were not supported by a formal board resolution or written authorisation, but the evidence showed that similar payments had been made in the course of the company's internal practice, and the recipients were not shown to have acted fraudulently or against the company's interests. In these circumstances, the Court declined to treat the payments as recoverable from the respondents. Since recovery itself was refused, no question of interest survived.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on the substantive claim for recovery, and the dismissal followed from the refusal to fasten liability on the respondents for the payments made.

---