TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application for misfeasance proceedings was barred by limitation under the winding-up provisions, and whether the later order of court supervising the voluntary winding up could be treated as the first appointment of a liquidator for computing the limitation period.
Analysis: The period prescribed by section 235 was held to run from the date of the first appointment of a liquidator in the winding up. The voluntary winding up had already commenced when the company appointed a liquidator, and the subsequent order under section 221 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, only placed the existing voluntary winding up under the supervision of the court. The court applied harmonious construction to read the opening words of section 235 with the phrase fixing limitation from the first appointment of a liquidator, and rejected the contention that the supervised winding up created a fresh first appointment. The references to earlier applications and to section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, did not save limitation, and the alleged retention of funds could not be treated as an indefinite continuing wrong so as to defeat the statutory bar.
Conclusion: The application was held to be time-barred and not maintainable.
TaxTMI 
