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 extends limitation only by excluding the specified winding-up period and one further year, or whether it also revives a claim that was already barred when the winding-up petition was filed.
Analysis: Section 458A was construed as a provision that merely excludes, for limitation purposes, the period from the commencement of winding up until the winding-up order and the additional year thereafter. Read with section 446(2) and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the provision supports claims that were legally enforceable when winding-up commenced, but it does not create a fresh cause of action. A claim already barred on the date of presentation of the winding-up petition cannot become enforceable merely because a winding-up order is subsequently made.
Conclusion: Section 458A does not revive a time-barred claim; the appeals were therefore decided against the appellants.
Final Conclusion: The law was settled that section 458A only suspends the running of limitation for enforceable claims in winding-up proceedings and does not resurrect claims already extinguished by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 458A of the Companies Act excludes a prescribed period in computing limitation for claims in winding-up proceedings, but it does not confer a fresh cause of action or revive a claim that was already barred on the relevant date.