N. V. RAMANA, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant, namely Official liquidator, representing the Company in liquidation (M/s. The Saptagiri Financiers), has filed this application under Sections 446 (2) and 583 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 9 and 11 (b) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 praying for a direction to the respondents to jointly and severa1ly pay to the applicant a sum of Rs. 14,55,750/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from 29-3-1997 till the date of rea1ization. ( 2 ) THIS Court, by order dated 26-11-1999, passed in C. P. No. 11 of 1999, ordered winding up of the applicant-company. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, that as per the information available from the files of the company in liquidation, late Sri. S. Narasimhulu Chetty and Sri. S. Nanda Gopa1 Chetty and their children, who are the respondents herein, have obtained a loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the applicant by executing a Mortgage deed, scribed in Telugu, for expansion of their business and clearing of their debts, and that the said amount was paid to the executants in two spells - Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of Cheque No. 417109, dated 10-11-1994 and Rs. 4,00,000/- by way of cheque No. 417829, dated 2-12-1994. It is further stated that the loanees while acknowledging receipt of the loan amount, paid an amount of Rs. 22,500/- towards interest for the period from 10-11-1994 to 9-12-1994 by way of Cheque No. 417285, dated 6-12-1994. According to the applicant, as per the information furnished in the list of Debtors/statement of Affairs/statement of Account by the ex-partner of the company in liquidation, the respondents have to pay the applicant a sum of Rs. 14,55,750/- as on 29-3-1997. It is their further case that the notices sent to the respondents demanding the amounts due and payable, were served on respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and while the notices in respect of respondent Nos. 2 and 6 returned unserved, and that till the date of filing of this application, the respondents have not made any payment, and as such, they are liable to pay the amounts mentioned in the application. ( 3 ) IN pursuance of the notice ordered by this Court, the respondents entered their appearance through a Counsel and filed counter. In the counter filed by respondent no. ( 3 ) IN pursuance of the notice ordered by this Court, the respondents entered their appearance through a Counsel and filed counter. In the counter filed by respondent no. 1 on behalf of the respondents, he is denied the averments made by the Official liquidator in support of his claim. It is stated that they have no knowledge of the Company Petition and the winding up of the applicant-company. Respondent No. 1 in his counter avers that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are his brothers, while Respondent nos. 4 to 6 are the children of his eldest brother, who died in the year 1997. He denied the execution of the Mortgage Deed in favour of the applicant and the receipt of the loan amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- mentioned in the Mortgage Deed, for developing their family business and clearing their loans, and contended that they have no connection whatsoever to the loan transaction. He states that as All the family members got separated long back and are living separately, the question of they executing Mortgage Deed jointly and receiving loan amount, and more particularly, for developing their business, does not arise. It is stated that the Mortgage Deed is a collusive document, which is not supported by any valid attestations and passing of any consideration. They have not received any amounts mentioned in the Mortgage deed and at no point of time have they given any authorization to late Sri S. Narsimhulu Chetty and late Sri Nand Gopal chetty either to borrow the loan amount or issue cheques or receipts on behalf of them. The counter A1so denies payment of interest of Rs. 22,500/- to the applicant in connection with the loan transaction. The documents indicating borrowing of loan and payment of interest, relied upon by the applicant in support of their claim, according to the respondents, are sham, and cannot be looked into, more so when Mortgage Deed has not been registered as per law. It is stated that the transactions shown in the accounts of the applicant are only book adjustments and the applicant-company had not paid any amount, muchless rs. 9,00,000/-, and the interest claimed on the said sum is excessive and usurious, and further the claim is barred by limitation. It is stated that the transactions shown in the accounts of the applicant are only book adjustments and the applicant-company had not paid any amount, muchless rs. 9,00,000/-, and the interest claimed on the said sum is excessive and usurious, and further the claim is barred by limitation. ( 4 ) THE Official Liquidator in support of his claim, filed affidavit in lieu of chief- examination of the Assistant working in his office and marked documents Exs. A1 to a7. No witness was examined on beha1f of the respondents nor any document was marked nor have they chosen to cross- examine the witness of the applicant. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the official Liquidator and the learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the Official liquidator would submit that late Sri. Narsimhulu Chetty, late Sri. Nanda Gopa1 chetty and the respondents herein have taken a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the applicant as loan for developing their family business by executing Ex. A1, Mortgage deed, written in Telugu, in favour of the applicant. According to him, the whole of the loan amount mentioned in Ex. A1, was paid to the respondents in two spells, rs. 5,00,000/- by way of Cheque No. 417109, dated 10-11-1994 and the ba1ance sum of rs. 4,00,000/-, by way of Cheque No. 417829, dated 2-12-1994, and the respondents have also acknowledged the receipt thereof. The learned Counsel further submits that the respondents having acknowledged receipt of the loan amount, A1so paid an amount of rs. 22. 500/- by way of Cheque No. 417285, dated 6-12-1994, towards interest for the period 10-11-1994 to 9-12-1994, and failed to pay any amounts thereafter. He submits that as per the list of debtors and statement of affairs filed by the ex-partner of the company before the Official Liquidator, the respondents, as on 29-3-1997, are due and payable to the applicant a sum of rs. 14,55,750/- A1ongwith interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum, and in spite of issuing notices, they have not made any payments, and therefore, they are entitled for a decree as prayed for. 14,55,750/- A1ongwith interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum, and in spite of issuing notices, they have not made any payments, and therefore, they are entitled for a decree as prayed for. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on beha1f of the respondents would strenuously contend that the respondents are not aware of any loan transaction having been taken between them and the applicant- company, and they have at no point authorized late Sri S. Narasimhulu Chetty or late Sri S. Nanda Gopal Chetty either to borrow or issue cheques or receipts on their behalf. According to him, the Mortgage Deed relied upon by the applicant in support of their case is a sham document, and therefore, cannot be acted upon, and more particularly when the applicant has not chosen to examine the scribe of the Mortgage Deed and the attestors thereto, to prove their case. The learned Counsel submits that no amount whatsoever mentioned in the Mortgage Deed was ever paid to the respondents nor have they executed the Mortgage Deed, and therefore, the question of they being due and payable to the applicant any amounts, much less the amounts mentioned in the mortgage Deed and the amounts claimed in the application along with interest, does not arise. He lastly contended that even otherwise the claim made by the applicant in this application is not enforceable inasmuch as the same is barred by limitation, and therefore,, the application filed by the applicant claiming the amounts mentioned therein, is liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) NONE of the contentions advanced by the respondents in support of their case do appeal to this Court. It may be noted that the respondents in their counter except making denial of the execution of the Mortgage Deed and the claim made by the applicant on the basis of the said mortgage Deed, they have not lead any evidence, be it ora1 or documentary to prove the contra. ( 9 ) IT may be noticed that the applicant in support of their claim that the respondents having taken loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the applicant by executing Mortgage Deed, have not made any payments, except Rs. 22,500/- towards interest for the period 10-11-1994 to 9-12-1994, and as such, are due and payable to the applicant in a sum of rs. 9,00,000/- from the applicant by executing Mortgage Deed, have not made any payments, except Rs. 22,500/- towards interest for the period 10-11-1994 to 9-12-1994, and as such, are due and payable to the applicant in a sum of rs. 14,55,750/- A1ong with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum, apart from filing affidavit in lieu of Chief of the Assistant working in the Office of the Official liquidator have marked documents Exs. A1 to A7. Ex. A1. which is in Telugu, is the deed of Mortgage, dated 9-11-1994, and is registered before the Sub-Registrar, palamaner. It is executed by the respondents in favour of the applicant. The contents of ex. A1 would disclose that the respondents have obtained loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the applicant for developing their business and clearing off their debts by mortgaging their properties mentioned under schedules a, B and C, and undertaking to pay interest thereon at the rate of 30% per annum. The signatures of all the respondents, including that of late Sri. S. Narsimhulu Chetty and late Sri. S. Nanda Gopal Chetty, do find on each page of the Mortgage Deed, which runs into 15 pages. A reading of the contents on the backside of page No. 4 of the Mortgage deed, which is marked as Ex. A2, would disclose that the respondents have given a cheque for Rs. 22,500/- bearing No. 417285, dated 6-12-1994 drawn on Syndicate bank, covering interest for the period from 10-11-1994 to 9-12-1994. Even on Ex. A2, the signatures of all the respondents including the two deceased, do find place. Exs. A3 and A4 are copy of Statement of Loan account and true copy of List of Debtors. The contents thereof go to show that the respondents are due and payable to the applicant a sum of Rs. 14,55,750/ -. Exs. A5 to A7, are true copy of notice, acknowledgement cards and unserved postal cover. A cumulative effect of Exs. A1 to A4 go to show that the respondents having obtained loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the applicant, have not made any payment to them, except paying interest for the period from 10-11-1994 to 9-12-1994. ( 10 ) THIS being the evidence, I proceed to consider the riva1 contentions. ( 11 ) THE contention of the respondents that in the absence of non-examining the scribe of Ex. 9,00,000/- from the applicant, have not made any payment to them, except paying interest for the period from 10-11-1994 to 9-12-1994. ( 10 ) THIS being the evidence, I proceed to consider the riva1 contentions. ( 11 ) THE contention of the respondents that in the absence of non-examining the scribe of Ex. A1 and the Attestors thereto, the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing their liability arising therefrom, cannot be accepted. It may be noticed that the evidence let in by the applicant, which is articulated in the above paragraph, did not stand rebutted by the respondents either by placing oral or documentary evidence. The respondents, leave A1one producing their evidence, have not even chosen to cross-examine the witness nor have they taken any objection to the marking of the documents in the evidence, especially Ex. A1, under which they executed the Mortgage Deed mortgaging the properties mentioned in schedules A, b and C, in favour of the applicant. When the respondents have not chosen to cross- examine the witness of the applicant nor have produced any evidence either oral or documentary on their behalf to falsify the claim of the applicant nor have taken any objection to the marking of the documents, it is not open for them to contend that in the absence of the scribe and the Attestors having been examined in accordance with section 3 of the Transfer of Property act, 1882, Ex. A1, cannot be taken into consideration. ( 12 ) THE contention of the respondents that Ex. A1, Mortgage Deed is a sham document, and therefore, cannot be relied upon to fix their liability cannot be accepted. It is well settled that burden lies heavily on the person making such an allegation. In the instant case, as stated above, the respondents have not only let in any evidence, but also have not chosen to cross-examine the witness of the Official Liquidator nor have taken objection to the marking of the documents. The evidence being so, merely on the basis of oral submissions and denials, the document on which the applicant have based their claim, cannot be said to be sham, and more particularly in the absence of any evidence let in by the respondents to prove the opposite. The evidence being so, merely on the basis of oral submissions and denials, the document on which the applicant have based their claim, cannot be said to be sham, and more particularly in the absence of any evidence let in by the respondents to prove the opposite. ( 13 ) THE respondents except making oral denials have not been able to say as to how their signatures came to be found on all the pages of Ex. A1, Mortgage Deed and on the backside of page 4 of the Mortgage deed, which is marked as Ex. A2. This apart, there is no dis-similarity in any of the signatures appended by respondent No. 1 on Exs. A1 and A2, when compared with his signature put by him in the counter filed opposing the present application, and therefore, it cannot be believed that the respondents have no knowledge about the loan transaction and their having executed any Mortgage Deed in favour of the applicant. ( 14 ) THE contention of the respondents that the claim made in the application is barred by limitation and therefore not enforceable, is misplaced. It is well settled that the winding up of a company by the court shall be deemed to commence at the time of the presentation of the petition for the winding up. Section 458-A of the companies Act, 1956, which deals with exclusion of certain time in computing period of limitation reads thus: 458-A. Notwithstanding anything in the Indian limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908) or in any other law for the time being in force, in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or application in the name and on beha1f of a company which is being wound up by the Court, 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 (both inclusive) and a period of one year immediately following the date of winding up order shall be excluded. ( 15 ) FROM the above provision of law, it becomes clear that 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 (both inclusive), is excluded, and that apart a period of one year immediately following the date of the winding up order, has to be excluded. In the instant case, the loan transaction was entered into in the year 1994, the Company Petition was filed in the year 1999 and the company was ordered to be wound up on 26-11-1999, and if the period from the date of commencement of the winding up of the company and the date of order of winding up plus one year after the order of winding up, is excluded for computing the period of limitation, as against the claim made by the applicant, which was made in the year 2002, the claim would not be barred by limitation and would be within time. ( 16 ) IN the result, and for the reasons foregoing, the application is allowed, and there shall be decree in favour of the applicant and against the respondents for a sum of Rs. 14,55,750/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from 29-3-1997 till the date of realization, and also costs, to be quantified by the office. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount to the applicant.