https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99775 Where no special limitation period exists for a company-court claim under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies, and time runs from the accrual of a clear right to apply; on the stated facts, the claim was treated as timely because refusal to return the company vehicle arose in 1972 and the application followed in 1973. Section 446 was also described as wide enough to proceed against an ex-director accountable for company assets handed over under his authority, including liability to account for the truck or its value, even though fraudulent conduct might also have supported action under a different provision. en-us Mon, 14 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:06:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99775 Where no special limitation period exists for a company-court claim under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies, and time runs from the accrual of a clear right to apply; on the stated facts, the claim was treated as timely because refusal to return the company vehicle arose in 1972 and the application followed in 1973. Section 446 was also described as wide enough to proceed against an ex-director accountable for company assets handed over under his authority, including liability to account for the truck or its value, even though fraudulent conduct might also have supported action under a different provision. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 14 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99775