Limitation for banking company liquidation claims does not create a summary recovery remedy for ordinary debts

Section 45F governed limitation for suits or applications by a banking company in liquidation, but it did not itself confer a right on the liquidator to recover ordinary debts by application to the Company Judge. The Court distinguished the summary remedy available for recovery from contributories from recovery of debts due from debtors, for which no corresponding statutory procedure existed. In the absence of framed rules authorising such an application, the liquidator was required to proceed by ordinary suit, with limitation determined under the Limitation Act read with section 45F. The application for recovery was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a liquidator of a banking company in liquidation can recover a debt from alleged debtors by application to the Company Judge, and whether section 45F permits such an application.

Analysis: The provision excluding the one-year period immediately preceding the winding-up order was held to govern the computation of limitation for suits or applications by a banking company, but it did not itself create a right to proceed by application for recovery of ordinary debts. The Court distinguished recovery from contributories, for which the Companies Act provided a summary remedy, from recovery of debts due from debtors, for which no corresponding statutory summary procedure existed. In the absence of framed rules authorising such a course, the liquidator was required to proceed by ordinary suit, with limitation governed by the relevant article of the Limitation Act read with section 45F.

Conclusion: The application for recovery of the alleged debt was not maintainable, and the liquidator had to seek recovery by suit.

---