9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of limitation within which the official liquidator is permitted to institute proceedings before a judicial forum in such cases. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the winding up petition was presented before the High Court on 26-5-1987 and that a winding up order came to be passed on 7-4-1988. Simultaneously, the official liquidator was appointed as liquidator of the company on the same day. The present application under section 543(2) has been filed before the High Court on 19-9-1994. The application is contested and, on behalf of some of the directors a preliminary objection has been canvassed viz, that the applica-tion has been presented beyond the period prescribed by law and that consequently, it would have to be dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1993 and that the petition filed on 19-9-1994 is hopelessly time barred and must fail on this ground alone. 5. On behalf of the official liquidator, an entirely different argument has been presented. It is contended that there is a general provision in the Act viz., section 458A which prescribes that the whole of the period consumed in the winding up of proceedings, plus a period of one year shall be excluded while computing limitation. According to the learned counsel, who represents the official liquidator section 45 8A is a general provision applicable to all applications emanating from the official liquidator including petitions of the present type, and his submission is that while computing the period of limitation the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra AIR 1974 SC 480. The learned counsel submitted before me that section 543 is a complete provision in itself, that there is no ambiguity with regard to what it postulates and, consequently, there is neither the need nor the sanction to draw from what is contained in any of the other provisions. 7. In deciding the correct legal position, one has to take into account the fact that the Act does contain a general provision in section 448A which provides for certain exclusions. Construing the two sections harmoniously, I do not see any conflict whatsoever because the Legisla- ture has taken into account the entire period of time spent during the winding up proceedings, and it is for this reason that the start ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only correct way in which the section can be applied is to construe it strictly. I have already indicated that there is a very good reason why proceedings which are not instituted within this period cannot be enter-tained by the courts as the proof of the charges themselves would become almost impossible in hopelessly belated cases. This case is a classic example because it has already been demonstrated to me that out of the erstwhile Directors, some have died and the proceedings being a criminal proceeding naturally abates against them. As far as the remaining are concerned, had this case gone to evidence I consider it a remote possibility of the Official Liquidator being able to establish these charges not because they may be groundless o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
