https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195916 Article 137 of the Limitation Act governs applications under the Companies Act, triggering the limitation period from the winding up order and rendering the Official Liquidator's Section 446 claim time barred where presented beyond four years; however, delay was condoned under the Limitation Act because a bona fide misapprehension arising from prior judicial uncertainty constituted sufficient cause. The hire purchase transaction was held enforceable despite a blank signed annexure due to admissions and corroborative evidence; allegations of fabricated accounts and prior lawful repossession were unproved. On the merits a claim order for recovery of 21,850 was granted against the respondents. en-us Mon, 21 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:48:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195916 Article 137 of the Limitation Act governs applications under the Companies Act, triggering the limitation period from the winding up order and rendering the Official Liquidator's Section 446 claim time barred where presented beyond four years; however, delay was condoned under the Limitation Act because a bona fide misapprehension arising from prior judicial uncertainty constituted sufficient cause. The hire purchase transaction was held enforceable despite a blank signed annexure due to admissions and corroborative evidence; allegations of fabricated accounts and prior lawful repossession were unproved. On the merits a claim order for recovery of 21,850 was granted against the respondents. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195916