9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (5) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of the Indian Companies Act for an order against the appellant. The liquidator alleged that the appellant had in his hands money amounting to Rs. 9,226-6-5, which he had received on behalf of the company and which belonged to the company and should be ordered to be handed over to the liquidator. The appellant admitted that he was employed as the branch manager at Jubbulpur and that he had received certain moneys for the, company but he claimed that the account had been settled on the 30th June, 1951, and a sum of Rs. 4,993-2-5 was found due from him in respect of which he had executed a pronote and that in satisfaction of that claim he had assigned to the company his two life policies worth Rs. 5,000 each and in this manner nothing was du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against him. Against that decision the present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is brought. As far as the accounts are concerned, Tek Chand J. has gone into every detail and found that in respect of the period between the 1st January, 1947, and the time the appellant left the service of the company a sum of Rs. 4,993-2-5 had remained in the hands of the appellant and for the period prior to the 1st January, 1947, the appellant had received and still had in his hands, when he left service, another sum of Rs. 5,391-1-8 and out of this total the appellant had made certain payments to the company but allowing for those a sum of Rs. 9,226-6-5 still remained in his hands. The correctness of these findings has not been seriously di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred by time-and it is the second question which has been seriously argued before us. It is convenient, however, to dispose of the first objection first. Mr. Ahluwalia says that an application under section 185 of the Companies Act lies only against a trustee, a receiver, a banker, an agent or an officer of the company, while the appellant was none of these at the time of the application. This, however, ignores the fact that when the 'money was actually received by the appellant, he was an officer of the company and it is the status of the appellant at the time the money came into his hands that has to be considered and not his status at the time of the application This view, expressed by Tek Chand J., is supported fully by the Madras High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit against a trustee in whom the-property has come to be vested, or, in other words, it applies to such cases-where the ownership of the property has been transferred to the trustee for a specified purpose. A number of decisions mentioned by Mr. Ahluwalia support this view and Mr. Sibal, for the respondent, accepts it as correct. Section 10 of the Limitation Act must, therefore, be held inapplicable to the present case. Mr. Ahluwalia is, however, not right in suggesting that if section 10 is not applicable, then the liquidator's application must be held barred by time, as Tek Chand J. has not decided the question of limitation on the sole basis of section 10 of the Limitation Act. He has otherwise held, apart from section 10, that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the money may have been received by such officer provided it was received on behalf of the company and received by him as an officer of the company. The remedy is summary and the object apparently is to protect the company's property in the hands of certain persons including an officer of the company. No question of limitation would seem to arise in such circumstances. Mr. Ahluwalia referred to certain decisions under section 186 of the Companies Act indicating that an order under section 186 can be made only in cases where a regular suit to recover the money due would still be within limitation. The correctness of these decision's is not in dispute and it is admitted that under section 186 the court can make a payment order only if a suit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be made under section 186 of the Companies Act does not assist the argument that the same rule should be applied to an order under section 185, for section 186 deals with ordinary debts while section 185 provides for moneys coming into the hands of an officer of a company in that capacity. No decided case favouring Mr. Ahluwalia's argument has been mentioned before us and as a matter of first impression I see no reason whatever for differing from the opinion of Tek Chand J. I would, therefore affirm his conclusion that the present application of the liquidator against the appellant was not barred by time and that it was otherwise competent in law. Nothing else is seriously urged in support of the present appeal which must, in the circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
