Limitation for company recovery claims: a summary procedure cannot revive a time-barred debt under section 469(1).

An application by an official liquidator under section 469(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 could proceed only if the underlying claim was still a legally enforceable debt. The Court held that the provision is merely a summary mode of recovery and does not create a new liability or revive a time-barred claim; limitation therefore had to be tested as if the company had sued for the same amount. Because the liability arose when the debits were made, the claim was already barred under article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The application was consequently barred by limitation and could not be entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application by the official liquidator for recovery of money from a contributory under section 469(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The application, though not a suit in form, could succeed only if the amount claimed was still "money due" within section 469(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The limitation question had therefore to be tested by asking whether a suit by the company to recover the same amount would have been time-barred on the date of the application. Section 469(1) did not create a new liability or a new right, but provided only a summary procedure for enforcing an existing liability. Since the liability arose when the debits were made, and not when the earlier order rejecting the respondent's explanation was passed, the claim was already out of time under article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Conclusion: The application was barred by limitation and could not be entertained under section 469(1) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Ratio Decidendi: An application under section 469(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 can be allowed only if the underlying monetary claim is not already barred by limitation, because the section is merely a summary mode of enforcing an existing liability and does not revive a time-barred debt.

---