9911796707
TMI Blog1932 (2) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Rs. 2,000. On November 10, 1924, he paid a sum of Rs. 500. The balance of Rs. 1,500 he was called on to pay on allotment and on two calls made by the company, that is by March 2, 1925, Rs. 1,500 ought to have been paid by the defendant-appellant on his share. On March 22, 1926, the directors of the company forfeited the appellant's share. Eventually, on May 9, 1928, Parshotam Das Agarwal was appointed a voluntary liquidator of the company by a resolution of the company, and on November 3, 1928, certain powers are alleged to have been given to the liquidator. The defendant not having paid the money due, the liquidator instituted the present suit on March 16, 1929, for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,500 and interest. Various pleas we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28 of Table A of the Indian Companies Act, which is applicable to this case, gives the liquidator of a company the right to sue within three years from the date of the forfeiture. We have examined the articles of association in the Bombay case and we find that there is really no difference between the provision of Article 28 of Table A attached to the Indian Companies Act and the articles in the Bombay case. We are of opinion that the point raised by the appellant has no force as the present suit was instituted within three years from the date of the forfeiture and Article 115 of the Limitation Act applies. The next point that is raised here is that the liquidator had no right to sue inasmuch as in the resolutions of November 3, 1928, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. In our opinion, the effect of the letter cannot be to take away the statutory rights of the liquidator to institute the present suit. The fourth ground taken is that it was the duty of the directors to take steps to sell the forfeited share and reduce the liabilities of the defendant and that as the company was working at a profit in 1926, the directors should have sold the shares. In our opinion, there is no force in this contention and we cannot allow it to be raised for the first time in second appeal. Lastly it is urged that the court below should not have allowed interest from the date of forfeiture to the date of suit. We are of opinion that there is substance in this plea. There was no contract claim upon which the claim for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
