https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97828 A proceeding is generally governed by the limitation law in force when it is instituted, and a later enactment will not revive a claim already barred unless retrospective effect is shown by express words or necessary intendment. On that basis, a petition filed under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 could not be validated by section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, because the later Act did not apply to pre-commencement winding-up proceedings. The discretionary power under section 235 of the 1913 Act also could not override an admitted limitation bar. Limitation ran from the wrongful credit or retainer itself, not from the company's later discovery of the mistake, so the petition remained time-barred. en-us Thu, 14 Jul 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:14:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97828 A proceeding is generally governed by the limitation law in force when it is instituted, and a later enactment will not revive a claim already barred unless retrospective effect is shown by express words or necessary intendment. On that basis, a petition filed under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 could not be validated by section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, because the later Act did not apply to pre-commencement winding-up proceedings. The discretionary power under section 235 of the 1913 Act also could not override an admitted limitation bar. Limitation ran from the wrongful credit or retainer itself, not from the company's later discovery of the mistake, so the petition remained time-barred. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 14 Jul 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97828