Limitation for official liquidator claims runs from the winding-up order, with excluded periods added in computation.

For an official liquidator's claim under section 446(2), limitation runs from the winding-up order or appointment of the provisional liquidator, not from the date of the last payment. The Court treated the relevant excluded periods under the Companies Act and the Limitation Act as adding to the prescribed limitation period, including the time during which the company was under winding-up proceedings and the additional period under section 458A. On that computation, the claim was within time. Limited set-off was permitted subject to production of the necessary consent letters, and payment by instalments was allowed with consequences for compliance or default.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim filed by the official liquidator was barred by limitation, having regard to the date of the last payment, the winding-up proceedings, and the periods liable to be excluded under the Limitation Act and the Companies Act. (ii) Whether the respondent was entitled to set-off and to payment by instalments.

Issue (i): Whether the claim filed by the official liquidator was barred by limitation, having regard to the date of the last payment, the winding-up proceedings, and the periods liable to be excluded under the Limitation Act and the Companies Act.

Analysis: The right of the official liquidator to invoke section 446(2) arose only on the passing of the winding-up order or the appointment of the provisional liquidator. The starting point of limitation for such a claim was therefore not the date of the last payment, but the date on which the winding-up order was made. The period during which the company remained under winding-up proceedings before the order, the further period during which the liquidator could not file claims, and the additional period allowed by section 458A were all liable to be added to the prescribed limitation period. On that computation, the claim was within time. The plea of limitation was rejected.

Conclusion: The claim was not barred by limitation and was held to be within time.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent was entitled to set-off and to payment by instalments.

Analysis: The Court allowed the possibility of set-off against other chit dues if the necessary consent letters were produced by the respondent. It also granted instalment payment of the principal amount with part interest, with a stipulation that timely compliance would waive the balance decree amount, while default would entitle the liquidator to recover the full decree amount.

Conclusion: Limited set-off was permitted subject to production of consent letters, and payment by instalments was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The claim succeeded, limitation was negatived, and the decree was passed in favour of the claimant with ancillary reliefs regarding set-off and instalments.

Ratio Decidendi: For a claim by an official liquidator under section 446(2), limitation begins from the winding-up order or appointment of the provisional liquidator, and the excluded periods under the Companies Act and the Limitation Act must be added to the prescribed period while computing limitation.

---