9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (4) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sented on March 25, 1949, and the winding up order was made on December 10, 1950, the liquidator being appointed for the first time on the same date. (There was a prior winding up order by the Bombay High Court on September 27, 1946, in respect of the British Indian branches of the bank which was incorporated in what was then known as the Indian State of Travancore and the appointment of a liquidator consequent thereto, but that may be ignored for the present purpose). On December 9, 1953, the then joint liquidators made a report, Report No. 10, in which they alleged that certain sums were due from the directors named in the report and prayed that proceedings may be started against them under section 235 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eged acts of misfeasance in this case are all before the winding up order and the appointment of the liquidator on December 10, 1950; naturally so, since the application is against the directors. I have said the application was brought only on May 21, 1958, and since I have repelled the argument that the proceedings must be deemed to have been initiated on December 9, 1953, it follows that the application is out of time so far as section 543(2) of the Companies Act is concerned. The company being a banking company is, however, entitled to the benefit of section 45-O of the Banking Companies Act, which prescribes a special period for limitation for banking companies that are being wound up. This section runs as follows: "45-O. (1) Notwit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a banking company which is being wound up and that, that being so, the period commencing from the presentation of the winding up petition, namely, the period from March 25, 1949, must be excluded for the purposes of limitation. That would, of course, mean that the application is in time and it would further mean that no application in misfeasance by a banking company in liquidation can ever be barred by time. For, such an application can be brought only in the course of the winding up, that is, after- the order of winding up and if the period from the presentation of the petition, which must necessarily be earlier, is to be excluded there can be no question of any bar of time. I do not, however, think that sub-section ( i ) really appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. It has been argued that a further period of one year is available under section 45-F of the Banking Companies Act as that Act stood after the amendment by Act 20 of 1950, and before the repeal effected by Ordinance 4 of 1953, dated October 24, 1953, followed by Act 53 of 1953, which came into force on December 30 ,1953. But the present application was brought only on May 21, 1958, when that provision stood repealed, and I do not see how the application can have the benefit of an exclusion given by a statute which had been repealed and was no longer in force. I have dealt with this matter at length in my order in B.C.C. 9/57 and in B. C. P. 2/53 differing from the view taken in Agricultural and Industrial Bank Ltd., In re [1956] Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
