1. The only point of substance in this appeal is that the appellant was given no notice under Rule 59 (Madras O.S. Rules under the Companies Act), after the list of contributories had been settled. This might have been a good point but unfortunately for the appellant, it was not even raised before the learned District Judge. It is therefore at this stage a mere technicality which cannot be allowed to defeat the Official Liquidator unless the appellant has some solid merits in his favour.
2. On the merits it is clear that the appellant could only have raised before the learned District Judge the same objections as he had already raised in his; counter to the Official Liquidator's application to include his name in the list of contributories. The same objections were raised by many other contributories and were rejected by the learned District Judge. We agree with the learned District Judge that the appellant's membership was not terminated; by the appropriation of his share capital towards the amount due by him to the Fund. There was no forfeiture of his share-capital and no termination of his member-ship. Since the appellant could only have raised before the learned District Judge objections which were actually raised by other contributors and which were properly overruled by the learned District Judge, we are not prepared to allow this appeal merely because no notice was given to the appellant under Rule 59. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.