https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99094 Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 fixed limitation from the first appointment of a liquidator in the winding up, or from the date of misapplication, retainer, misfeasance or breach of trust, whichever period was longer; a successor liquidator could not restart the statutory period. The application was therefore time-barred. Payments made under an unchallenged company court order that had attained finality could not be impeached by the successor official liquidator, so the liquidator lacked locus standi to question the disbursement. On these preliminary objections, the application failed in limine and the substantive merits were not examined. en-us Tue, 14 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:31:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99094 Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 fixed limitation from the first appointment of a liquidator in the winding up, or from the date of misapplication, retainer, misfeasance or breach of trust, whichever period was longer; a successor liquidator could not restart the statutory period. The application was therefore time-barred. Payments made under an unchallenged company court order that had attained finality could not be impeached by the successor official liquidator, so the liquidator lacked locus standi to question the disbursement. On these preliminary objections, the application failed in limine and the substantive merits were not examined. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 14 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99094