TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the winding-up petition under section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 was maintainable when the underlying claim for recovery of money was already time-barred, and whether the period spent in prosecuting an earlier winding-up petition in another court could be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Analysis: The petitioner's earlier proceeding before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was for a winding-up remedy, whereas the present controversy concerned whether a civil claim for recovery of the same amount was within limitation. Exclusion under section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only where the earlier proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith for the same relief or the same matter in issue in a court unable to entertain it for want of jurisdiction or a similar defect. A winding-up petition is not the same as a suit for recovery of money, because the relief and procedure are materially different; the winding-up process is not a substitute for enforcing a time-barred debt. Since the last acknowledged payment fixed the relevant cause of action well beyond the limitation period for a recovery suit, the claim itself had become barred by time. A petition under section 433(e) cannot be used merely as a debt-recovery device where the debt is no longer legally recoverable in a civil suit.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the winding-up petition was not maintainable because the underlying claim had become time-barred. The petition was liable to be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not extend limitation for a money claim when the earlier proceeding was a winding-up petition seeking a different relief, and a winding-up petition under section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be used to enforce a debt that is already barred by time.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
