Winding-up claim procedure: a claimant cannot revive a time-barred, finally rejected claim by switching to liquidation proceedings.

A claimant in winding-up proceedings who was required to prove the claim within time, obtained leave to sue on specified terms, and then failed to comply with those terms could not later revive the same claim through a fresh summons in liquidation proceedings under Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act. Once the refusal to extend time further had attained finality, the claimant was bound by that order and could not bypass it by seeking inquiry and adjudication under a different procedure. A party that elected to proceed by suit and failed to satisfy the court-imposed conditions could not resile from that election after the claim had effectively been dismissed for non-compliance. The application was held not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a claimant in winding-up proceedings, having failed to file the suit within the time granted by the Court and having allowed the order to attain finality, could later seek inquiry and adjudication of the same claim in the liquidation proceedings under Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act.

Analysis: The claim had already been required to be proved within the prescribed time. Further time was granted, and permission was then obtained to file a suit on specified terms. Those terms were not complied with within time, and the refusal to extend time further became final because no appeal was taken. After that final order, the claimant could not revive the matter by filing a fresh summons and invoke a different procedure merely because an intervening decision suggested a possible alternative course. A party who chose to pursue the claim by suit, and failed to comply with the conditions imposed, could not later resile from that election and ask the Court to alter the procedure after the claim had effectively been dismissed for non-compliance.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed; the appellant's contention failed.

---