9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Suit for recovery of unpaid share money by a contributory. 2. Whether the suit for call money constitutes a book debt. 3. Limitation period for filing the suit. 4. Validity of the set-off plea. Analysis: The case involves an appeal against a decree and judgment confirming the decision of the lower courts regarding a suit for recovery of unpaid share money by a contributory in a limited liability company that went into liquidation. The plaintiff, the highest bidder for the book debts of the company, filed a suit against the defendant, a promoter of the society, for the unpaid share money on 101 shares. The lower courts concluded that such a suit for call money does not lie as it does not constitute a book debt. Additionally, the suit was held to be barred by limitation as the debit entry was made on a specific date, beyond the prescribed period for filing. Furthermore, the defendant's payment to a creditor was considered as meeting his obligation as a promoter. The court upheld the lower courts' decision on all counts, dismissing the second appeal and awarding costs against the appellant. The primary issue addressed was whether the suit for recovery of unpaid share money by the contributory constitutes a book debt. The court affirmed that call money from a contributory does not amount to a book debt, as established by legal precedents. The statutory right of the liquidator against a contributory is distinct from a contractual obligation between the company and the shareholder, as clarified in previous judgments. Therefore, the suit based on call money was deemed not maintainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Another crucial aspect considered was the limitation period for filing the suit. The court noted that the debit entry triggering the cause of action was dated before the suit was filed, rendering it time-barred. The court emphasized that the suit for realisation of a contractual debt was clearly outside the permissible timeframe, reinforcing the lower courts' decision to dismiss the suit. The final issue addressed was the validity of the set-off plea raised by the defendant. Despite the insignificance of the set-off due to the dismissal based on the previous issues, the court acknowledged that the defendant had fulfilled his obligations as a promoter, indicating no fraudulent intent. Ultimately, the court found the decision of the lower courts to be sound and upheld the dismissal of the second appeal, with costs awarded against the appellant.
|
