9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the company is a proper plaintiff to assert that a charge is void due to non-registration under section 95 of the Companies Act, 1948. 2. Whether the charge constituted by the deposit of hire-purchase agreements was a charge on book-debts and therefore registrable under section 95(2)(e) of the Companies Act, 1948. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Proper Plaintiff to Assert Charge Voidness: The preliminary point addressed whether the company, in creditors' voluntary liquidation, could assert that certain hire-purchase agreements were not subject to a charge in favor of the defendants due to non-registration under section 95 of the Companies Act, 1948. The defendants argued that section 95 makes the charge void against the liquidator and creditors, not the company itself, thus the company could not sustain such an action. The court noted that the defendants did not raise this point in their pleadings, but it was a pure point of law and could be raised at trial. The court considered the procedural rules under R.S.C., Ord. 25, rules 1, 2, and 3, which allow points of law to be raised in pleadings or at trial. It was determined that although it is not convenient to omit significant points of law from pleadings, the defendants were not precluded from raising this point. The court concluded that the company itself could not have a good cause of action arising from the non-registration of a charge, as the charge is only void against the liquidator and creditors, not the company. Additionally, section 96 imposes a statutory duty on the company to register any registrable charge, and allowing the company to assert the charge's voidness would require it to plead its own default. Thus, the proper course was for the proceedings to be brought by the liquidator, and the court permitted the amendment to join the liquidator as a co-plaintiff. 2. Charge on Book-Debts and Registrability: The substantive issue was whether the deposit of hire-purchase agreements constituted a charge on book-debts, making it registrable under section 95(2)(e) of the Companies Act, 1948. The court examined the nature of the charge created by the deposit of agreements. The defendants argued that the agreements charged the benefits under the agreements, not specifically book-debts. The court referred to historical interpretations of "book-debts," citing Shipley v. Marshall and concluded that book-debts are debts arising in the course of business that would be entered in well-kept books, regardless of actual entry. The court rejected the defendants' argument that no debt existed if the hirer made payments punctually, stating that the hire rent accrued day by day, creating a liability for the hirer even if the agreement was determinable. Furthermore, the hirer's minimum liability under the agreement constituted an existing debt, making it a book-debt at the date of the deposit. The court also addressed the registrability of charges on future book-debts, concluding that such charges are registrable under section 95. The court found no basis to restrict the interpretation of "book-debts" to existing debts only and cited Eve J.'s view in In re George Inglefield, supporting the registrability of charges on future book-debts. Conclusion: The court declared that the charges created by the deposit of the 53 agreements were registrable under section 95 and, not having been registered, were void against the plaintiff liquidator. An order was made for the delivery up of the agreements.
|
