Limitation for misfeasance claims by official liquidators excludes Section 458A extension under the Companies Act.

An application by an official liquidator under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 for misfeasance or breach of trust is subject to the limitation period in that provision, and the additional year under Section 458A does not apply because such an application is not made in the name and on behalf of the company. The court treated Section 543 as a special remedy brought by the liquidator in his own right for the company's benefit, so the extended limitation reserved for suits and applications by or on behalf of the company was unavailable. An amendment to the cause-title did not change that legal position, and the claim for compensation was therefore time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application by the official liquidator under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 for misfeasance and breach of trust was barred by limitation, and whether the additional year under Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 was available.

Analysis: Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 authorises the court to examine the conduct of delinquent directors, officers and others and to order repayment or compensation, but only on an application made within the period specified in sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) prescribes a limitation of five years from the relevant date, whichever is longer. Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 extends limitation only for suits and applications in the name and on behalf of the company by the official liquidator. An application under Section 543 is made by the official liquidator in his own right under that special provision, although for the benefit of the company, and is not an application in the name and on behalf of the company. Therefore, the extended period under Section 458A is not attracted. The amendment of the cause-title did not alter this legal position.

Conclusion: The application under Section 543 was time-barred and the benefit of Section 458A was unavailable.

Final Conclusion: The claim for compensation against the delinquent director could not be entertained because it was instituted beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi: An application under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 by an official liquidator is not an application in the name and on behalf of the company for the purposes of Section 458A, and the extended period of limitation under that provision is therefore unavailable.

---