9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (8) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e official liquidator reported to the court that there was nothing to manage and asked for direction to sell the book debts. This permission was accorded. The plaintiff became the highest bidder for Rs. 15. The defendant was also the unsuccessful bidder at that auction. The defendant was one of the promoters of the society. He had purchased 101 shares but in this case what happened was that he had not remitted even a sum of Rs. 5 which according to the articles of association was to be paid towards every share at the time of the application, the balance being payable after allotment. In fact there is a mere statement of memorandum that 101 shares had been allotted to the defendant. Subsequently, it would appear that the affairs of the compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s below. Firstly, I am bound by the findings of fact of both the courts below. Secondly, turning to the question whether this amount for which the suit has been laid is call money or not there cannot be any slightest doubt that it is call money from a contributory who had applied for 100 shares. On that conclusion it follows that no suit will lie because it is now concluded by authority that call money does not constitute a book debt. A bench of this court in Pudukottai Ceramics Ltd. v. Sethu alias Ramanathan Chettiar [1956] 26 Comp. Cas. 166 , held that the right which the liquidator in the winding up of a company has against a contributory is a statutory right created by the Companies Act and not a contractual one as between the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the debit entry giving rise to a cause of action is of the date 14th August, 1950, while the suit was laid on 28th November, 1953, for realisation of a contractual debt and, therefore, it was clearly barred by limitation. The final point is the set-off pleaded. It is no doubt true that in view of the decision on points 1 and 2 the plea of set-off is not of any importance but at the same time it is a comforting thought to us that the defendant has not swindled the institution. On the other hand, he has met his obligation as one of the promoters of the company. The net result of this analysis is that the decision of the court below is irreproachable. The second appeal has got to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with costs. No le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
