9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Correct period of limitation for claims under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Interpretation and applicability of sections 446 and 458A of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. Jurisdiction and powers of the court winding up the company. 4. Applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. Impact of conflicting judicial decisions on the interpretation of the relevant provisions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Correct Period of Limitation for Claims under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956: The main question referred for consideration was the correct period of limitation for claims under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, in light of section 458A of the Act. The court concluded that the correct period of limitation is determined by the relevant article in the Limitation Act, 1963, applicable to the nature of the claim. The period of limitation does not commence from the date the winding-up order is passed or the official liquidator is appointed but is based on when the right to recover the claim accrued to the company. 2. Interpretation and Applicability of Sections 446 and 458A of the Companies Act, 1956: Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, confers jurisdiction on the court winding up the company to entertain and dispose of suits or proceedings by or against the company. Section 458A provides for the exclusion of certain periods in computing the limitation period. The court held that these sections do not create new rights or obligations but provide a procedural framework for handling claims during the winding-up process. The period of limitation for such claims is governed by the Limitation Act or any other applicable law, with specific periods excluded as per section 458A. 3. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Court Winding Up the Company: The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the court under section 446(2) commences from the date the winding-up order is passed. This jurisdiction includes entertaining and disposing of suits or proceedings by or against the company, claims made by or against the company, applications under section 391, and questions of priorities or other related matters. The court clarified that this jurisdiction is exclusive and overrides other laws, ensuring that all such matters are handled by the court winding up the company to avoid prolonged and expensive litigation. 4. Applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The court addressed the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which is a residuary article applicable to applications for which no specific period of limitation is provided. The court disagreed with the view that Article 137 applies to all claims under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act. Instead, the relevant article in the Limitation Act applicable to the specific nature of the claim should be considered. Article 137 would apply only if no other article is relevant to the claim. 5. Impact of Conflicting Judicial Decisions: The court reviewed various conflicting judicial decisions from different High Courts and the Supreme Court. It disagreed with the view that the right to apply under section 446(2)(b) accrues only from the date of the winding-up order. The court overruled decisions that held that the limitation period starts from the date of the winding-up order, emphasizing that the enforceability of the claim should be determined based on the relevant article in the Limitation Act and the date the claim accrued to the company. The court also clarified that the official liquidator does not have higher or fresh rights than those available to the company before the commencement of the winding-up proceedings. Conclusion: The court concluded that the correct period of limitation for claims under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act is determined by the relevant article in the Limitation Act, 1963, applicable to the nature of the claim. The period of limitation should be computed by excluding the periods described in section 458A of the Companies Act. The court emphasized that the enforceability of the claim should be determined based on the date the claim accrued to the company, not the date of the winding-up order.
|
