9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (9) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mply with the demand down to-date. The other ground of the petitioner is that the company is also unable to pay its debts. This is a private limited company, of which the petitioner was the managing director until August 6, 1959. He resigned from that office with effect from the next day. But he continued to be a director of the company for some time thereafter. His case is that under article 107 of the articles of association, he was entitled to draw Rs. 2,000 per mensem as remuneration for his services as managing director of the company, that though prior to April, 1958, he did not draw his salary, he, however, did so from April to June, 1958. The company's year of account is stated to be 30th June. He claims that since the beginning of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e directors resolved requesting the petitioner to waive his claim. There is no evidence that the petitioner complied with that request at any time. On the other hand, by his letter dated October 31, 1960, the petitioner clearly denied having agreed to forgo his remuneration for the period. The contention of the company is that the circumstantial indications would show that there had been such a waiver. The circumstances referred to are that the petitioner, for the period prior to April, 1958, had waived his remuneration for each year, and that in an earlier petition for liquidation, which went up in O. S. Appeal, he did not figure before the Division Bench dealing with that appeal as a creditor in response to an advertisement. As for the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebt due to himself. To such a case, the principle of Coliseum ( Harrow) Limited In re [1930] 2 Ch. 44, Transplanters ( Holding) Company Ltd. In re [1958] 1 W.L.R. 822 and Thirumalai lyengar v. Official Liquidator, Srinivasa Mills Ltd. [1961] 31 Comp. Cas. 501, would be applicable. It is true the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings of the board of directors at its meeting dated December 17, 1959. But that itself can make no difference to the application of the principle. Further, even on the assumption that the proceedings at that meeting of the board of directors amounted to an acknowledgment, the debt would still be barred on January 8, 1963, when the present application was filed for winding up. It was contended for the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
