Limitation bars official liquidator's claim where the underlying debt was already time-barred and section 458A was unavailable.

An official liquidator's application for an order-cum-decree under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was held barred by limitation. The underlying loan claims had arisen in 1971 and 1972, and the winding-up petition was filed only in 1976, by which time more than three years had elapsed from the lending dates. The Court held that a winding-up petition cannot be founded on a debt already barred by limitation. Section 458A was unavailable because the application was filed more than one year after the winding-up order, and article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied. The request was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the official liquidator's application for an order-cum-decree under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The claim arose from loans said to have been advanced in 1971 and 1972. Even on the most favourable assumption, the winding-up petition was filed only in 1976, by which time more than three years had elapsed from the lending dates. The Court held that a winding-up petition could not be founded on a debt already barred by limitation. The benefit of section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 was also unavailable because the application was filed more than one year after the winding-up order. The claim was therefore held to be barred under article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable as the claim was barred by limitation and the request for an order-cum-decree failed.

---