https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98491 Section 235 limitation for misfeasance proceedings ran from the first appointment of a liquidator in the winding up. A voluntary winding up had already begun when the company appointed a liquidator, and the later court order supervising that process under section 221 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, did not constitute a fresh first appointment. Applying harmonious construction, the court read the opening words of section 235 with the limitation trigger and rejected the argument that supervised winding up restarted time. Earlier applications, section 543 of the 1956 Act, and the alleged retention of funds did not avoid the statutory bar; the application was time-barred and not maintainable. en-us Fri, 28 Jun 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:45:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98491 Section 235 limitation for misfeasance proceedings ran from the first appointment of a liquidator in the winding up. A voluntary winding up had already begun when the company appointed a liquidator, and the later court order supervising that process under section 221 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, did not constitute a fresh first appointment. Applying harmonious construction, the court read the opening words of section 235 with the limitation trigger and rejected the argument that supervised winding up restarted time. Earlier applications, section 543 of the 1956 Act, and the alleged retention of funds did not avoid the statutory bar; the application was time-barred and not maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 28 Jun 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98491