Banerji, J. - (1.) The first appeal from order has been filed under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, against an order passed by the District Judge, Varanasi, dated Septembers, 1977, allowing claim of the respondent, Smt. Sultha Devi Gupta, for a sum of Rs. 1,17,948.49. Aggrieved by the above order, Benares Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. (in liquidation) has filed this appeal through the official liquidator.
(2.) Smt. Sulbha Devi Gupta, hereinafter referred to as " the claimant ", made a claim for a sum of Rs. 1,17,948.49 before the joint official liquidator. The latter investigated the claim and submitted a report dated August 21, 1960. In the above report, he held that the claim was barred by time and also pointed out that the liquidator had a claim against the directors including the claimant, under Section 235 of the Companies Act, and, as such, the claimant was not entitled to any payment until the claim of the official liquidator had been fully satisfied. The claimant being dissatisfied with the report of the liquidator filed an objection before the Dist. Judge. The official liquidator submitted a reply in the form of a written statement. Papers were filed by the claimant in support of the claim. The official liquidator submitted his supplementary report.
(3.) Learned District Judge framed two issues. On the first issue he held that the subject-matter of the claim was advanced as loan to the company. This necessitated enquiring into the other issue, viz., whether the claim was barred by limitation. The District Judge held that the claim was not barred by limitation. The court below relied on a Division Bench decision of our court in the case of Jwala Prasad v. Jwala Bank Ltd. [1957] 27 Comp Cas 310 (All) and a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of S. Abdul Muthalibu v. K. M. Mohammed Abdul Khader [1962] 32 Comp Cas 1102 (Mad). It was observed by the court below in its judgment that, according to the decision in the case of Jwala Prasad v. Jwala Bank Ltd. [1957] 27 Comp Cas 310 (All), the date of the winding up would be treated as the date on which the application for winding up was made. On this basis, the court held that the advance was made on July 9, 1951, and the winding-up petition filed on May 13, 1954, was thus within three years and, as such, the claim was maintainable.;