Skip to content


The Pudukkottai Ceramics, Ltd.; Krishna and Sons. Managing Agents R. Krishna Iyengar Vs. Sethu Alias Ramanathan Chettiar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1956)1MLJ486
AppellantThe Pudukkottai Ceramics, Ltd.; Krishna and Sons. Managing Agents R. Krishna Iyengar
RespondentSethu Alias Ramanathan Chettiar and ors.
Cases ReferredLtd. v. Manek Haji I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - 595 ,as well as the observations of their lordships of the judicial committee in hansraj gupta v. 1055, as well as the dicta of jardine, j. in these circumstances we are satisfied that since the liquidators have another remedy which in our opinion is not barred, there is no necessity to proceed with the second appeal......according to sections 155 and 156 of the indian companies act, the moment a liquidation arises the rights, which the liquidators have against the erstwhile shareholders who happen to be contributories is a new statutory right created by the companies act and not a liability which the shareholders had to the company for the unpaid share money. reliance is placed upon the observations of jessel m.r. in in re white house & co. (1878) 9 ch. 595 , as well as the observations of their lordships of the judicial committee in hansraj gupta v. official liquidators of the dehradun, etc., company . the learned counsel also contends that observation of din mohammad, j., in jagaron trading syndicate (in liquidations) v. manachand roshan lal i.l.r.(1935) lah. 1055, as well as the dicta of jardine, j.,.....
Judgment:

Govinda Menon, J.

1. C.M.P. No. 8180 of 1955 : It is contended by Mr. R. Narasimhachari for the respondents that even if the company went into liquidation after the filing of the Second Appeal and during its pendency the Liquidators cannot be brought on record as the representatives of the erstwhile company as appellants. The learned Counsel contends that according to Sections 155 and 156 of the Indian Companies Act, the moment a Liquidation arises the rights, which the Liquidators have against the erstwhile shareholders who happen to be contributories is a new statutory right created by the Companies Act and not a liability which the shareholders had to the company for the unpaid share money. Reliance is placed upon the observations of Jessel M.R. in In re White House & Co. (1878) 9 Ch. 595 , as well as the observations of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidators of the Dehradun, etc., Company . The learned Counsel also contends that observation of Din Mohammad, J., in Jagaron Trading Syndicate (in Liquidations) v. Manachand Roshan Lal I.L.R.(1935) Lah. 1055, as well as the dicta of Jardine, J., in The Parell Spinning & Weaving Co., Ltd. v. Manek Haji I.L.R.(1886) 10 Bom. 483, convey the same principle. It seems to us that on a reading of the sections as interpreted by these Judicial pronouncements the right which the Liquidator has against the contributory is a statutory one and not a contractual one between the shareholders and the company. That being so, there is no cause of action which survives to the Liquidator in a matter of this kind. But it has to be mentioned that since that right is a new one created by the statute as soon as the Liquidators make a call and settle the list of contributories, a period of six years will enure in their favour for filing a suit for enforcing the liability. Mr. Narasimhachari does not dispute this proposition of law. In these circumstances we are satisfied that since the Liquidators have another remedy which in our opinion is not barred, there is no necessity to proceed with the Second Appeal. C.M.P. No. 8180 of 1955 is, therefore, dismissed.

2. In view of the fact that the Liquidators cannot come on record as legal representatives of the appellants, S.A. No. 1906 of 1951 abates and is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //