Skip to content


Pabna Dhana Bhandar Co. Ltd. Vs. Promoda Chandra Roy and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1932Cal382,137Ind.Cas.380
AppellantPabna Dhana Bhandar Co. Ltd.
RespondentPromoda Chandra Roy and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....of certain calls. these calls were not paid by the share-holders concerned. thereafter, the city brick co., ltd., mortgaged these unpaid calls to the pabna dhana bhandar co., ltd. the mortgage was not redeemed and the result was that the mortgagees, the pabna dhana bhandar co ltd., had to institute a suit to enforce the mortgage. they obtained a decree and in execution of the decree, they ha to buy in the security mortgaged to them namely, the unpaid calls. it appears that some time after the date of the mortgage the mortgagor company went into liquidation. some time thereafter the pabna dhana bhandar co., ltd., (we are informed that this company has also gone into liquidation but that fact has no bearing on the point in issue as purchaser of the mortgaged security, namely, the.....
Judgment:

C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J.

1. In these Letters Patent Appeals, an attempt was made by the learned advocate on behalf of the appellants to suggest that some point or points of law required consideration; but on examination of the facts, it appears that no point of law arises and that the matter involved is dependent on a question of fact.

2. The position was as follows: There-was a company called the City Brick Co., Ltd. That company issued notices for payment of certain calls. These calls were not paid by the share-holders concerned. Thereafter, the City Brick Co., Ltd., mortgaged these unpaid calls to the Pabna Dhana Bhandar Co., Ltd. The mortgage was not redeemed and the result was that the mortgagees, the Pabna Dhana Bhandar Co Ltd., had to institute a suit to enforce the mortgage. They obtained a decree and in execution of the decree, they ha to buy in the security mortgaged to them namely, the unpaid calls. It appears that some time after the date of the mortgage the mortgagor company went into liquidation. Some time thereafter the Pabna Dhana Bhandar Co., Ltd., (we are informed that this company has also gone into liquidation but that fact has no bearing on the point in issue as purchaser of the mortgaged security, namely, the unpaid calls, instituted the present suits for recovery of the moneys due by the defaulting share-holders. The liquidator of the City Brick Co. Ltd., was also made a party to these suits. The main question is whether the suits were barred by limitation or not.

3. There can be no doubt that as against the defaulting share-holders the date of the default was 31st August 1921. Therefore, as against the defaulting shareholders, namely, the defendants in the present actions, time began to run from and after 31st August 1921. If that was so then the present suits were clearly barred under the provisions of Article 112, Schedule 1, Lim. Act. The question is: 'Was limitation which as is stated above, began to run against the defaulting share-holders on 31st August 1921 interrupted in any way by the fact that the City Brick Co. Ltd., went into liquidation at a certain date The assignment of the mortgage in favour of the Pabna Dhana Bhandar Co. Ltd., was long before the date when the City Brick Co. Ltd., went into liquidation, and the fact that the liquidator was a party defendant in these suits does not improve the plaintiffs' position in any way and does not show that there could have been in law any interruption of the running of time so far as the defaulting share-holders were concerned. That being so, it must be held that Cuming, J., was right in the view which he took and these Letters Patent Appeals must stand dismissed with costs.


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