1977 (12) TMI 108 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of section 446(2)(b) and section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956.
- Application of limitation period to claims made under the Companies Act.
- Relevance of article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to applications under special Acts.

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Delhi involved the interpretation of section 446(2)(b) and section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956. The appeal was against an order passed by the learned company judge concerning the application of the official liquidator under the mentioned sections against a company and others. The company judge had ruled that the claim petition against the company was time-barred and unenforceable under clause (b) of section 446(2) of the Companies Act. The judge dismissed the application against the company but allowed it to proceed against other respondents. The appeal was specifically filed against the company in question.

The main contention revolved around the application of the limitation period to claims under the Companies Act. The respondent argued that the claim was for the price of goods sold and was governed by art. 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which had a three-year limitation period from the date of delivery of goods. However, the appellant contended that as the application was under the Companies Act, no specific limitation period applied, and art. 137 of the Limitation Act, which applies to applications, did not create a bar for such applications.

The judgment also delved into the relevance of article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to applications under special Acts. The Supreme Court's decision in a related matter clarified that art. 137 was not limited to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure but extended to applications under special Acts as well. This decision influenced the concession made by the appellant's counsel, acknowledging that the petition filed by the official liquidator would be time-barred regardless of the interpretation of the word "claim" under section 446(2) of the Companies Act.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, noting that even with the benefit of section 458A of the Act and considering the period of limitation under article 137 of the Limitation Act, the claim petition was time-barred. The judgment emphasized that the application was indeed barred by time based on the official liquidator's own contentions, without needing to determine the exact meaning of the word "claim" in the relevant section of the Act. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, concluding the matter.