9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed April 4, 1976, has passed the order under section 433 of the Act and the said company has been wound up and the official liquidator attached to this court was appointed as official liquidator of the winding up company. The official liquidator has filed this application under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, seeking an order-cum-decree against the respondent. It is the claim of the official liquidator that by application dated October 8, 1971, respondent No. 1 had sought a loan of Rs. 6,000 and by another application dated August 19, 1972, has sought further loan of Rs. 16,000 and that those loans were sanctioned and paid to him and he was to return the said loan with interest at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum. It is further the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments in support of his claim in this application, therefore, I have to proceed with the matter on the basis of the averments made in the application. As per the averments made by the official liquidator in the application, it is quite clear that the first loan of Rs. 6,000 was paid on October 8, 1971, whereas the second loan was paid on August 19, 1972. The original company petition being Company Petition No. 7 of 1976, in which the order of winding up of the company is passed. From the record of this proceedings, it is not possible to know the exact date of the filing of the said Company Petition No. 7 of 1976, but any way, even assuming in favour of the applicant, it could be held at the most that the said company petition was filed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsiderations, even giving all the benefits of counting the period of limitation in favour of the official liquidator, it is quite obvious that on the date when this application was filed, the claim for getting the order-cum-decree could not be entertained as the same was already barred by the law of limitation and, therefore, on this count alone, the present application deserves to be rejected. The said claim is barred by the law of limitation as provided by article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. I am supported to this view of mine by the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of R.C. Abrol and Co. (P.) Ltd. (In Liquidation) v. A.R. Chadha and Co. [1979] 49 Comp Cas 77 and the judgment of the single judge of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
