Running account claims by an official liquidator can survive limitation and proof challenges when supported by company records and part-payments.

Claims by an official liquidator based on a running account and repeated part-payments were held within limitation, because the transactions were treated as continuous dealings and the claim was filed within the period applied under the Limitation Act and Companies Act provisions noted in the text. The claim was also not rejected for want of primary documentary evidence, because the liquidator was entitled to rely on the company records, statement of affairs and audited materials available after winding up, and the absence of invoices not in his custody did not defeat a bona fide claim supported by the records obtained. The appeal failed and the payment order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the claim of the official liquidator was barred by limitation, and (ii) whether the claim was liable to be rejected for want of primary documentary evidence.

Issue (i): whether the claim of the official liquidator was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The claim arose out of advertising transactions carried on over a period, and the materials showed repeated bills and several part-payments credited against the aggregate liability. On the available record, the dealings were treated as a running account rather than isolated independent claims. The limitation plea was considered with reference to Article 137 of the Limitation Act, section 19 of that Act, and section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956, and the application was found to have been filed within time.

Conclusion: The claim was not barred by limitation and the finding was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the claim was liable to be rejected for want of primary documentary evidence.

Analysis: The official liquidator could rely on the books and records that had come into his custody after winding up, together with the statement of affairs and the audited materials available to him. The court held that the best evidence reasonably available to the liquidator had been produced, and the absence of invoices not in his possession did not defeat a bona fide claim supported by the records actually obtained.

Conclusion: The claim could not be rejected for want of primary documentary evidence and the finding was against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order directing payment to the official liquidator was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In claims by an official liquidator, limitation and proof are to be assessed on the basis of the available company records and part-payments, and a running account supported by such records may be enforced within the applicable limitation period.

---