Provability of debts: debts recoverable at petition presentation remain provable in winding up despite later time-bar, outcome upheld.

A debt that was recoverable within limitation on the date of presentation of a winding-up petition remains provable under the Companies Act even if it becomes time-barred before the court makes the winding-up order. The reasoning treats the commencement of winding up as relating back to the petition date, applying the relation-back principle drawn from insolvency analogue provisions so that provability is determined as of presentation. The Limitation Act does not independently defeat such claims where the Companies Act and insolvency rules render the petition date operative for provability; the contested debt was held provable on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether a debt which was recoverable (within limitation) on the date of presentation of the petition for winding up but became barred by limitation before the winding up order is made is provable under the Companies Act.

Analysis: The Court examined Section 229 of the Companies Act and noted the statutory provision (Section 168) that a winding up by the Court is deemed to commence from the date of presentation of the petition. By analogy with the Provincial Insolvency Act (notably Section 28(7) and Section 34(2)), the Court considered authorities holding that an order of adjudication or winding up relates back to the filing date so that debts provable on the date of filing remain provable despite becoming time-barred before the formal order. The Court rejected the view that the Limitation Act operates independently to defeat such provable debts, observing that the Companies Act and insolvency rules operate to treat the date of petition as the operative date for provability. The Court applied these principles to the proved debt of Rs. 2,359-7-9 and held it provable.

Conclusion: The debt which was within limitation on the date of presentation of the winding up petition is provable under the Companies Act even though it became time-barred before the winding up order; the appellant's claim for Rs. 2,359-7-9 is proved and the appeal is allowed.

---