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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the claim lodged by the official liquidator was barred by limitation and, consequently, not maintainable as an enforceable claim in winding-up proceedings.
Analysis: The claim was based on a promissory note dated 30 March 1970, while the winding-up petition was filed only after the expiry of the ordinary three-year period for enforcing the claim. The only circumstance relied on to save limitation was the date of the last payment. However, section 19 of the Limitation Act applies only where the part payment is acknowledged in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment. No such acknowledgment was pleaded or proved. In the absence of facts showing a legally effective acknowledgment or any other saving provision, the claim could not be treated as subsisting on the date relevant for winding up. A claim under section 446(2) of the Companies Act must be an enforceable claim.
Conclusion: The claim was barred by limitation and was not maintainable; the appeal succeeded and the claim was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A claim presented in liquidation proceedings under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 must be a legally enforceable claim on the relevant date, and a mere part payment does not extend limitation unless it satisfies section 19 of the Limitation Act by a written acknowledgment signed by the payer.