Order Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. The applicant is the official liquidator appointed in respect of the company in liquidation M/S.NGEF Limited. It was claimed that the Managing Director, KPTCL had placed purchase orders with M/S.NGEF Ltd. (in liquidation) as per the invoices furnished by the Exdirector of the captioned company in liquidation for a sum of Rs.2,72,38,000/- for the supply of erection and commissioning of transformers (2 nos) of 50 MVA capacity, one at Harohalli and one at Tataguni Substation. The respondent is said to have withheld the amount due on account of NGEF not having repaired a 20 MVA Transformer. The Applicant Company is said to have made a request in that regard and permitted it to deduct the repair charges from the bill. 3. But it was claimed that, the 2 nos. of 50 MVA transformers were not repaired. It is stated that KPTCL had stopped all payments in terms as aforesaid. Therefore, the Official Liquidator on the basis of the entries in the Books of Accounts of the company in liquidation, is said to have issued a notice dated 12.10.2004 to the respondent to remit the said sum, with interest thereon at 18% per annum. The respondent had not remitted the amount and hence the application. 4. The respondent had filed objections to the same denying the liability and contended that even if the liability could be established, it was barred by limitation in terms of Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956. The Official Liquidator had even tendered evidence in support of the claim. The Official Liquidator however later has conceded that the respondent was due to pay only against two invoices namely invoice at Serial No.3 and Serial No.6 shown in paragraph 3 of statement of objection of the respondent in tabular Form. It is these two payments alone which are now claimed at the hearing. 5. With reference to the evidence on record, the learned counsel for the respondent, however would emphasize that the two claims were clearly barred by limitation, with reference to the following dates. The Company Petition No.154/2002 was filed on 2.9.2002 and the company was ordered to be wound up on 3.8.2004. Under the general Law of Limitation the date was due as on the date of filing of the petition. The Company Petition No.154/2002 was filed on 2.9.2002 and the company was ordered to be wound up on 3.8.2004. Under the general Law of Limitation the date was due as on the date of filing of the petition. Taking into account the exemption of the period contemplated under Section 458 A of the Act, the amounts were due insofar as the amounts shown at serial Nos.3 and 6, as on 6.10.2002. The claim in fact, is filed on 11.9.2008 and hence it was clearly barred by time. 6. As against which the learned counsel for the applicant would contend that as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Steel and Wire Products and others Vs. Kohinoor Rolling Shutters and Engineering Works, and others reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 179, the claim is well within time. If time is computed from the date of order of winding up of a Company and the date on which the winding up order is made, is well within time. In view of the legal position as stated by the Supreme Court which is extracted hereunder: “3. On a plain reading of the provisions contained in Section 458A of the Companies Act, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid provision merely excludes the period during which a company was being wound up by the Court from the date of the commencement of the winding up till the order of winding up is made and an additional period of one year immediately following the date of the winding up. In other words, in respect of a legally enforceable claim, which claim could have been made by the company on the date on which the application for winding up is made, could be filed by the official liquidator by taking the benefit of Section 458A of the Companies Act and getting the period of four years to be excluded from the period of three years, as provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The legislature, by way of an amendment, brought into force the provisions of Section 458A, so that an official liquidator, who is supposed to be in custody of the assets and liability of the company, would be able to file a claim on behalf of the company, which was legally enforceable on the date of the winding up, after excluding the period, indicated under Section 458A of the Companies Act, so that the company or its shareholders will not suffer any loss. But by no stretch of imagination, the said provisions contained in Section 458A can be construed to mean that even a barred debt or a claim which was not enforceable on the date of the winding up, would stand revived, once a winding up application is filed and order is made by virtue of Section 458A of the Companies Act. We, therefore, affirm the view taken by the Karnataka High Court under the impugned Judgment and dismiss these appeals. There will be no order as to costs.” Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956, is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “458A. Exclusion of certain time in computing periods of limitation: 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 behalf of a company which is being wound up by the Tribunal, 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 the winding up order shall be excluded. 7. It is evident from the above provision that the law of limitation namely the Limitation Act, 1963, would not be applicable during the pendency of the winding up petition i.e. from the date of filing of the petition upto the date of winding up order. 8. Under the provisions of the Companies Act, a winding up proceedings commences by presentation of a petition as provided under subsection (1) of Section 441 of the said Act and at any time, after the presentation of a winding up petition, the Court may appoint the official liquidator. 8. Under the provisions of the Companies Act, a winding up proceedings commences by presentation of a petition as provided under subsection (1) of Section 441 of the said Act and at any time, after the presentation of a winding up petition, the Court may appoint the official liquidator. Under Section 446 of the Act, once an official liquidator is appointed, then all legal proceedings against the company can be proceeded with only with the leave of the Company Judge and subject to such terms as the Company Court imposes. Under Subsection (2) of Section 446, it is the winding up Court which gets the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding by or against the company as well as any claim made by or against the company. Section 458A merely excludes the time in computing the period of limitation for any claim. 9. It is accepted that any application in respect of a claim filed under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act is covered by the residuary Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and the period of limitation prescribed therein, is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. This can only be in respect of a legally enforceable claim that was not time barred as on the date of filing the winding up petition. 10. Hence, if the period of one year provided under Section 458A of the Companies Act, to enable the Official Liquidator is added to the three years provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the claim could be filed within a period of four years from the date of winding up order. 11. In the present case an order of winding up was made on 3.8.2004. The claim was made on 11.9.2008 and was hence beyond a period of four years and hence barred by limitation. The application is accordingly dismissed.