M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application by the official liquidator under S. 446 (2) (b) of the companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for an order directing the respondents to jointly and severally pay to him the sum of rs. 2323-50 being the debt due by them to M/s. Unico Trading and Chit Funds (India) (P) Ltd. , (in Liquidation ). ( 2 ) THE aforementioned Company was ordered by this Court to be wound up on 4-2-1977 in Coy. Petn. No. 7/1975 filed on 3-10-1975. ( 3 ) THE details of claims of the Official liquidator and the resistance to the same by the respondents may be briefly stated as follows: ( 4 ) THE 1st respondent S. H. Lohati of poona (Pune) was a member of the chit Group B. E. I having Chit No. 15. The value of the chit was Rs. 2500. At the auction held for that chit group in the Pune Branch of the Company in liquidation he was the highest bidder on 23-8-1973. He received the prize amount on 8-10-1973 and on the same date executed a promissory note for rs. 1437-50 agreeing to pay interest at 12% per annum. Respondents 2 and 3 as sureties joined in the execution of the promissory note and other documents connected therewith. The Official liquidator issued notices to the respondents calling upon them to pay the sum of Rs. 2323-50 on 1-5-1980. Respondents appear to have replied the notices denying their liability. In the result this application is filed by the Official Liquidator on 19-8-1980. The claim is as follows:"chit Value. Rs. 2,500-00 Less: Subscription paid upto 8-10-1973 rs. 1,062-50 Balance: Rs. 1,437-50 add: Interest at 12 per cent per annum from 8-10-1973 to 3-2-77 Rs. 573-50 interest at 6 per cent per annum from 4-2-1977 to 5-8-1980 the date of this application rs. 302-50 Notice charges Rs. 10-00 Total: Rs. 2,323-50" ( 5 ) THE respondents have entered appearance and filed their objection statement through Counsel. They do not admit the claim based on the promissory note dated 8-16-1973. The 1st respondent denies receipt of consideration. Respondents have questioned the jurisdiction of this Court as they all reside at pune and the cause of action admittedly arose at Pune. 2,323-50" ( 5 ) THE respondents have entered appearance and filed their objection statement through Counsel. They do not admit the claim based on the promissory note dated 8-16-1973. The 1st respondent denies receipt of consideration. Respondents have questioned the jurisdiction of this Court as they all reside at pune and the cause of action admittedly arose at Pune. Respondents have also contended that the application is barred by time and therefore the application is liable to be dismissed with costs. ( 6 ) IN the light of the pleadings as above the matter was set down for enquiry on 6-3-1981. On that day, Shri chandrasekhar V. Joshi, of the Pune bar, appearing for respondents submitted that the respondents give up all their defence except the one relating to question of limitation and the applicartion therefore may be disposed of solely on that question. Accordingly arguments were heard on the question of limitation assuming that the respondents had no other defence against the claim. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the only point for determination is whether the application filed on 22-8-1980, 6 years 10 months and 14 days after the date of pronote would be within time, regard being had to S. 458-A of the Act and Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. ( 8 ) SHRI Joshi has argued that all that S. 458-A of the Act provides, having regard to the clear and unambiguous language of the section, is the exclusion of specified periods mentioned in the section for the purpose of computing the period of limitation despite provisions to the contrary in the Indian limitation Act or any other law for the time being in force for presenting a suit or an application in the name and on behalf of a Company which is being wound up by the Court and as such the official Liquidator could only exclude the period between the presentation of the petition and the making of the winding up order by the Court plus one year in computing the period of limitation under the Indian Limitation Act for enforcing a money claim under a promissory note or even under Art. 137 of the Indian Limitation Act which is only 3 years. According to the learned Counsel the periods to be excluded are the period between 3-10-1975 and 4-2-1977 plus one year which would only be 2 years 4 months and 1 day. According to the learned Counsel the periods to be excluded are the period between 3-10-1975 and 4-2-1977 plus one year which would only be 2 years 4 months and 1 day. Thus he has contended the application should have been filed within 5 years 4 months and 1 day from the date of pronote which would be on or before 9-2-1979 and not on 22-8-1980 which would be far beyond the prescribed period of limitation. ( 9 ) ON the other hand Shri Vijayashankar, learned Counsel for the applicant-Official liquidator has contended that the application under S. 446 (2) (b) of the Act not being a suit for recovery of money due under a pronote or under any other cause of action, only the residuary art. 137 of the Indian Limitation act is attracted and under that article the Official Liquidator may present the application within 3 years from the date of the winding up order made by the Court plus the period to be excluded under S. 458-A of the, Act. Thrust of his argument is that under art. 137 of the Limitation Act, limitation commences from the time the right to sue accrues and the right accrued to the Official Liquidator only on the date the Court made the winding up order on 4-2-1977 and the application having been filed on 22-8-1980, is well within time as the Official Liquidator in the instant case had 5 years 4 months and 1 day from 4-2-1977 to present the application. ( 10 ) IN the case of the scope of s. 446 (2) (b) of the Act, Ss. 458a and 469 of the Act and the applicability of the Indian Limitation Act came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the delhi High Court. In that case the Official liquidator filed a claim under S. 446 (2) of the Act before the Additional district Judge, Delhi against the Faridar bad Cold Storage and Allied Industry to recover certain sums due to the Company in Liquidation. One of the defences taken by the Company was that the claim was barred by limitation. The learned District Judge while decreeing the claim on merits held that the claim under S. 446 (2) of the Act not being a suit did not attract the provisions of the indian Limitation Act. One of the defences taken by the Company was that the claim was barred by limitation. The learned District Judge while decreeing the claim on merits held that the claim under S. 446 (2) of the Act not being a suit did not attract the provisions of the indian Limitation Act. On appeal by the defendant-Company, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court referred the appeal for decision by a Full Bench. ( 11 ) THE Full Bench after considering in detail the Legislative history of the relevant sections of the Act aforementioned has held; (1) The power exercised by the company Court under S. 469 of the act (corresponding to S. 186 of the companies Act, 1913) could only be so exercised if the 'money due' to the company was recoverable on the date of application in a suit and did not include any money which was not so recoverable (Reliance was placed on the Privy Council decision in the case of Hansraj Gupta v. Dehara Dun Mussorie Electric Tramway co. , Ltd. , AIR 1933 P. C. 63), (2) The expression 'any claim' occurring in S. 446 (2) (b) of the Act should be interpreted as any claim enforceable at law. (3) The relevant date for computing the period of limitation would be the date of the winding up order made by the Company Court as the official Liquidator or other claimants would not have acquired the right to enforce such claim or claims under s. 446 (2) (b) on any date prior to the date of the winding up order and that the claimant would be entitled to the full benefit of S. 458-A of the Act. (4) Art. 137 of the Indian Limitation act was not confined to suits and applications under the Code of Civil procedure but applied also to applications made under special Acts (Reliance placed on the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Kerala state Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T. P. Kunhaliumma AIR 1977 SC 282 ) and therefore claim petitions under S. 446 (2) (b) of the Act were covered by Art. 137 of the Indian limitation Act. ( 12 ) THOUGH I have summarised the findings of the Full Bench, I cannot claim the. precision and clarity with which the Full Bench has explained the law. I am in full agreement with the same. ( 12 ) THOUGH I have summarised the findings of the Full Bench, I cannot claim the. precision and clarity with which the Full Bench has explained the law. I am in full agreement with the same. ( 13 ) APPLYING the law to the facts of the case on hand I see that the claim of the Official Liquidator against the respondents was a legally enforceable claim on 3-10-1975, the date on which the petition for winding up was presented to this Court as the pronote was executed on 8-10-1973. Winding up order was made on 4-2-1977 and therefore the clock of the law of limitation would come to a stop between 3-10-1975 and 4-2-1977 and for a further period of one year in terms of S. 458-A of the act. ( 14 ) COLUMN 3 of Art. 137 of the indian Limitation Act states that time begins to run when the right to apply accrues. In the case of the present claimant right to apply accrued on 4-2-1977. Thus the Official Liquidator had 3 years plus the maximum advantage of S. 458a of the Act which would be the exclusion of 1 year plus another year and 4 months. Thus the Official Liquidator could have presented the application within five years and four months from 4-2-1977. therefore, the application filed on 22-8-1980 is well within time and is not barred by time. ( 15 ) THE respondents not having pressed or proved the other defences pleaded, are liable to pay to the Official liquidator the sum of Rs. 2323-50 together with costs and current interest at 6 per cent per annum on Rs. 1437-50 from date of application till date of realisation. ( 16 ) THE application is allowed with costs and the order will accordingly issue. --- *** --- .