Limitation in liquidation runs from the winding-up order, and an acknowledgment must be duly authorised and properly signed.

A successor to a managing agency was found validly nominated, so the power to appoint a general manager was upheld, but remuneration was denied because the appointment was not shown to be bona fide and the appointee did not actually function in that role. In liquidation matters, limitation was held to run from the winding-up order, not the winding-up petition, so claims already time-barred on that date could not be revived. A balance-sheet operates as an acknowledgment only if it is properly authenticated by a duly authorised person; on the facts, no valid authority or legally effective authentication was proved, so limitation was not extended.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the nomination of the successor to the managing agency was valid and whether the appointee could validly appoint a general manager and claim remuneration, (ii) whether limitation in respect of claims against the company in liquidation had to be computed from the winding-up order or the winding-up petition and whether the claim was saved by acknowledgment, and (iii) whether the balance-sheet relied upon amounted to a valid acknowledgment under the law.

Issue (i): Whether the nomination of the successor to the managing agency was valid and whether the appointee could validly appoint a general manager and claim remuneration.

Analysis: The deed of nomination was proved and the successor was found to have been validly appointed as chairman of the managing agency. On that footing, the appointment of the general manager could not be denied merely for want of power in the appointee. However, the surrounding circumstances showed that the appointment was made when the company was already under governmental control or on the verge of it, the appointee never ly functioned as general manager, and the appointment was not shown to have been made for any genuine managerial necessity.

Conclusion: The appointment power was upheld, but the claim for remuneration was rejected because the appointment was not bona fide and the appellant did not in fact act as general manager.

Issue (ii): Whether limitation in respect of claims against the company in liquidation had to be computed from the winding-up order or the winding-up petition and whether the claim was saved by acknowledgment.

Analysis: The statutory scheme showed that the material date for limitation was the date of the winding-up order, not the date of presentation of the petition. The company could still be sued while the petition was pending, and the suspension of ordinary recovery proceedings began only on the making of the winding-up order. A claim already barred on that date could not be revived in liquidation. The alleged acknowledgment had therefore to be examined on that basis.

Conclusion: Limitation was held to run from the winding-up order, and claims already barred on that date were not recoverable.

Issue (iii): Whether the balance-sheet relied upon amounted to a valid acknowledgment under the law.

Analysis: A balance-sheet can operate as an acknowledgment only if it is lawfully authenticated and signed by a person duly authorised to bind the company. The control order under which the authorised controller functioned did not confer power to depart from the statutory requirements for authentication of a company balance-sheet. The Manager's authority to sign was not proved by any specific written or lawful authorisation, and the evidence did not establish a valid acknowledgment within the meaning of the Limitation Act.

Conclusion: The balance-sheet was not accepted as a valid acknowledgment, and the limitation period was not extended.

Final Conclusion: The connected appeals were disposed of with one appeal allowed in part for a reduced amount and the remaining appeals dismissed. The decision affirms that, in liquidation, limitation is governed by the date of the winding-up order and that a purported acknowledgment must be shown to be made by a duly authorised person in a legally effective form.

---