9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company dated May 20, 1957 and September 12, 1958. He has stated that after the winding-up order was made he asked the other directors to file a claim on his behalf also because he was not in a position to undertake the journey to Jodhpur on account of his old age and illness, and that be remained under the impression that they had done so. He came to know from one of the ex-directors that the claims of the other three directors were allowed by the Official Liquidator on September 25, 1971, and he therefore filed the present application on October 29, 1971. As a dividend had already been declared by then, the applicant has stated their he may be paid out of the surplus in the hand of the liquidator. An affidavit has been filed in support o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, the only consequence of the delay will be that prescribed by Section 474 of the Companies Act according to which a creditor, who does not prove his debt or claim within the time fixed by the court, has to be excluded from the benefit of any distribution made before his debt or claim is proved. A perusal of Rules 177 178 of the Rules lends support to this view, for the reason that while Rule 177 provides for relief by the Court to a creditor who fails to file proof within the prescribed time-limit, Rule 178 lays down that a creditor who has not proved his debt before the declaration of any dividend shall not be entitled to disturb the distribution of any dividend declared before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fixed by the Court is not exclusion altogether, but exclusion from the benefit of any distribution made before proof. 4. The same view has been expressed in Palmer's Company Law, twenty-first edition, at Page 761. Reference may also be made to the decisions in Isack Jesudasen Pillai v. Divan Bahadur Ramsamy Chhetty ILR 1904 Mad. 496 which appears to have been based on the decision in In re General Rolling Stock Company 1871 (7) Ch. Appeal 646, and to T.R. Rajakumari v. Motion Picture Producers Combine Ltd. AIR 1942 Mad. 349. it is thus a well settled proposition of the law, a creditor may come in and prove his debt at any time before the final distribution of the assets, but he cannot disturb any dividend which has already been paid, T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
