Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing The Official Liquidator Of Liberty ... vs Radha Mohan And Ors. on 21 August, 1978

O.A.Antony vs Chandni Chits Pvt.Ltd (In Liquidation) ... on 2 March, 2001

After Co. App.Nos.4, 5, 6, 9, 15, 19, 25/03 & M.F.A.Nos.376 & 470/03 17 referring to the decisions in Faridabad Cold Storages case (supra), Liberty Finances case (supra), etc., the Full Bench of this Court held that, as per Section 458A of the Act, in respect of any suit or application in the name and on behalf of a company in liquidation, the period from the date of commencement of the winding up of the company to the date on which the winding up order is made and a further period of one year are to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. Both the periods referred to above are to be excluded in computing the period of limitation and there is nothing in Section 458A to restrict its application to the one year period after the winding up order has been passed, in cases where the claim does not get barred during the pendency of the winding up application. On the above reasoning, the Full Bench held that the respective claims involved in those appeals, which were filed by the Official Liquidator beyond a period of four years from the date of winding up order are not barred by limitation.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ktc, Tyres (India) Ltd. vs Kavitha Auto Parts on 29 August, 1997

3. Shri. N.P. Samuel, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Courts have taken a consistent view that debts which are burred once cannot be legally enforceable by virtue of Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act. The above provision in the Companies Act gives the Court jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of any claim made by or against the Company. According to the learned counsel, "any claim" occurring in the above Section means a claim which is legally enforceable. The learned counsel relied on a ruling of the Delhi High Court reported in Liberty Finance P. Ltd. (in Liquidation) In re Official Liquidator, Liberty, Finance P. Ltd. v. Pandit Radha Mohan, (1979) 49 CC 287 :(1979 Tax LR NOC 107) wherein it was held that aclaim which had become time barred on the date of presentation of the winding up petition cannot be described as a legally enforceable claim and the provisions of Section 446(2)(b) do not enable the Official Liquidator to file or receive claims which had been quietened by the lapse of time.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karnataka Steel & Wire Products & Ors vs Kohinoor Rolling Shutters & Eng.Works & ... on 12 November, 2002

In a latter decision of the Delhi High Court however in the case Liberty Finance Pvt. Ltd.(In liquidation) vs. Pandit Radha Mohan & Ors., 1979 Co. cases Vol.49 287, Ranganathan J, as he then was, considered the question, which is the subject matter of consideration in the case in hand and held that the expression "any claim" occurring in Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act means, a claim which is legally enforceable and, therefore, a claim which had become time barred on the date of presentation of the winding up petition cannot be described as a legally enforceable claim and the provisions of Section 446(2)(b) do not enable the official liquidator to file or receive claims which had been quietened by the lapse of time. Where there is an enforceable claim as on the date of the winding up petition, the official liquidator can make an application under Section 446(2) and such an application will attract the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. It was further held that reading Section 458A of the Companies Act and Article 137 of the Limitation Act together, such an application by the official liquidator should be filed within a period of four years from the date of the winding up order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Kochupoly vs M/S.Holy Family Chits & Lons Pvt. Ltd on 12 June, 2007

6. In principle, we are in full agreement with the interpretation given by the learned Company Judge to the scope and purport of Section 458A of the Companies Act. However, the question that remains to be considered is whether even after giving the benefit of extended period of limitation to the Official Liquidator, the Company claim was still time barred. In these cases, as per Section 441 of the Companies Act, 1956, winding up proceedings commenced, with the presentation of the Company Petition on 9.3.1992, and the Company was ordered to be wound up by order dated 15.7.1992. As held by the Delhi High Court in Liberty Finance P. Ltd. In re Official Liquidator v. Pandit Radha Mohan and others (1979) 49 Company Cases 287, the right of the Official Liquidator to make an application under Section 446 arises on the date when the winding up order is passed and reading Section 458A of the Act and Article 137 of the Limitation Act together, such an application by the Official Liquidator should be filed within a period of four years from the date of the winding up order.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Dominic - Full Document
1