SUDARSAN CHITS (INDIA) LTD. Vs. MADALAM NARASIMHALU CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Official Liquidator, who is the provisional Liquidator of the Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. (in liquidation), hereinafter referred to as the 'Company' is the appellant.

(2.) Petition to wind up the Company was filed before this Court on 2nd January, 1981. By order of the Company Court dated 13th, October, 1981 the Company was ordered to be wound up. However, in appeal a Division Bench of this Court modified the order of winding up and approved a scheme for its revival. The appellate judgment dated 8th October, 1982 is reported in Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. v. G. Sukumaran Pillai (1) LLR 1983 (1) Kerala 700 = (1985) 57 Comp. Cases 85. Among other things the appellate court authorised the provisional Liquidator to file 'suits' and to take all steps necessary for the conduct of the suits and for recovery of the amounts due to the Company. Subsequently the Company filed CM.P. No. 14913 of 1983 to permit the filing of 'claims' under S.446 of the Companies Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', before this Court for realising the dues to the Company. This Court by order dated 18th August, 1983 refused to grant permission to file claims in this Court and directed the Liquidator to file suits in the respective courts having jurisdiction for realising the dues to the Company. That order was set aside by the Supreme Court in Sudarsan Chits (India) Lid. v. G. Sukumaran Pillai AIR 1984 SC 1579 = (1985) 58 Comp. Cases 633, holding that the winding up court has jurisdiction to take recourse to S.446 of the Act since the order of winding up was neither cancelled nor recalled nor revoked nor set aside by the appellate judgment. Accordingly the Supreme Court allowed the application filed by the Official Liquidator and directed the Liquidator to file claim petitions under S.446(2) of the Act in the Company Court itself, for realising the amounts due to the Company. The claim from, which the present M.F.A. arises is one such claim. The claim was filed on 6th December 1991. Learned Company Judge by the order under challenge dismissed the claim as barred by limitation.

(3.) Urgent notice by special messenger was ordered to the respondents in the M.F.A. Although the notice was duly served, respondents did not enter appearance. Therefore, as required by us, Shri G. Unnikrishnan, Advocate, appeared before us as amicus curiae and argued the appeal. Shri K. P. Dandapani, Advocate, appeared for the Liquidator.