Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 applies to a misfeasance application under section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, so as to exclude the period between the commencement of winding up and the winding-up order, along with one year thereafter, for computing limitation.
Analysis: The limitation objection turned on whether an application by the official liquidator under section 543 is an application in the name of and on behalf of the company. The Court held that such proceedings are instituted for the company in liquidation and are therefore within the scope of section 458A, which begins with a non obstante clause and overrides the general limitation period fixed elsewhere. The Court also held that express sanction under section 457 was not necessary in the circumstances, and in any event could be implied where the application was made before the company court itself. On that basis, the exclusion under section 458A applied and the application was within time.
Conclusion: Section 458A applies to an application under section 543 by the official liquidator, and the application was not barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: A misfeasance proceeding under section 543 by the official liquidator is an application in the name of and on behalf of the company in liquidation, and the exclusion period under section 458A must be applied in computing limitation.