TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (11) TMI 187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled for releasing the unpaid called amount together with interest thereon from the respondent. The company was doing business to purchase, sell, hire out or sell on hire purchase system all kinds of vehicles, motor cycles, rickshaws, gramophones, pianos and musical instruments, machines, etc., house equipment and all other articles that the company may deem fit. Company Petition No. 10 of 1980 was filed in this court on January 15, 1980, for winding up of the company. The company was ordered to be wound up under the orders of this court on August 22, 1985. Ex-managing director filed the statement of affairs with the official liquidator and books of account were handed over to him. On the scrutiny of accounts and from the statement of aff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the respondent ? (ii)Whether the present petition is within limitation ? (iii)Relief. Parties led their evidence. On behalf of the company, PW-1, Sh. Paramjit Singh, ex-managing director, and PW-2, Sh. K.G. Chawla, an official of the official liquidator, were produced. On behalf of the respondent, Kartar Singh, himself appeared as RW-1. No other evidence was led. By way of documentary evidence, the petitioner produced accounts of the respondent as per ledger maintained by the company in due course of its business as exhibit PW-1/2. Exhibit PW-2/2 is the acknowledgment due receipt showing service of the notice sent by the official liquidator to the respondent. It has been stated by PW-1, Paramjit Singh, ex-managing director of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 16,245 remains payable by him to the company. The books of account maintained by the company are in the regular course of business and the veracity of these accounts has not been challenged by the respondent. PW-1, Paramjit Singh, has stated in categorical terms that a sum of Rs. 16,245 remains due towards him. The company has been able to discharge onus on issue No. 1 that a sum of Rs. 16,245 remains payable by the respondent and further that he is also liable to pay interest upon it. The second issue is with regard to the limitation. According to counsel for the respondent, the present petition has been filed beyond limitation. The loan was taken in the year 1983 and the petitioner was ordered to be wound up in August, 1985. Accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... winding up order shall be excluded." I do not find any force in the submission of counsel appearing for the respondent. The petition is not barred by limitation as contended by him. After excluding the period during which the proceedings were pending in this court and adding to it the period of one year given under section 458A of the Act and the period of limitation of three years under article 137 of the Limitation Act, which would accrue from the date of the winding up order, the present petition is within time. Section 458A starts with a non-obstante clause, that is, notwithstanding anything contrary to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The point in issue is not res integra. The matter has been considered in Unico Trading and Chit Fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company accrues only on and from the date of the winding up order. Under article 137 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation, namely, three years, begins to run from the date on which the right to apply, accrues, namely, the date of the winding up order. Thus, on a plain reading of section 458A of the Companies Act, the exclusion that is to be made under section 458A of the Companies Act is the period commencing from the date of winding up order. Sections 12 to 15 of the Limitation Act provide for exclusion of time under certain circumstances. It is well-settled that in applying those provisions, the periods excluded have to be added to the prescribed period (see Maqbul Ahmad v. Onkar Pratap, AIR 1935 PC 85 and Bhagwan Swarup v. Mun....