Specific Procedural Limitation overrides general limitation; officer's authorised signature is irregularity not invalidating notice for objections.

Where a specific procedural rule prescribes a time-limit for objections to notices, that specific limitation governs over a general limitation statute, and the specific thirty day period under the procedural rule applies rather than the three year general limitation. Separately, a notice signed by an officer of a corporate liquidator acting with authority is not invalid for want of the liquidator's personal signature; such omission is an irregularity that does not vitiate the notice where the officer is empowered to act on the corporate body's behalf.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice placing the appellant on the list of contributories was invalid because it was signed by an officer of a corporate liquidator rather than by a liquidator; (ii) Whether the period of limitation for filing objections was three years under the Limitation Act or thirty days under Rule 50 of the rules framed under the Indian Companies Act.

Issue (i): Whether the notice was invalid because it was signed by Daulat Ram (the bank's manager) rather than by a liquidator.

Analysis: The Court examined whether the signature by the bank's general manager, acting on behalf of the corporate liquidator, rendered the notice void. The Court found no provision in the Indian Companies Act corresponding to the English provision cited by the appellant and accepted that the general manager was empowered to act for the bank in the liquidation proceedings. The omission to expressly describe his capacity when signing was treated as an irregularity rather than a defect invalidating the notice.

Conclusion: The notice was valid; the signature by the bank's manager was a mere irregularity and did not invalidate the notice.

Issue (ii): Whether the limitation period for filing objections was three years under Article 18 r of the Limitation Act or thirty days under Rule 50 of the court's rules.

Analysis: The Court considered the effect of a specific procedural time limit provided by Rule 50 for objections to such notices. It held that where a specific limitation is prescribed by the procedural rule, that specific provision governs over a general limitation period under the Limitation Act.

Conclusion: The thirty days period under Rule 50 applied; the three years limitation under the Limitation Act did not govern objections of this kind.

Final Conclusion: The Court affirmed the lower court's findings that the notice was not invalid and that Rule 50 prescribes the applicable limitation period, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific procedural rule prescribes a limitation period for filing objections, that specific limitation governs over a general limitation provision; a signature by an officer of a corporate liquidator is a mere irregularity and does not invalidate process if the officer is empowered to act on behalf of the corporate body.

---