IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Jagadisan and Mr. Justice Kailasam
P.S. Thirumalai Iyengar
Versus
The Official Liquidator, Srinivasa Mills, Limited, Madurai, T. N. Palace, Madurai
A.A.O. No. 200 of 1958. (5th Magha, 1882, Saka.)
Decided On : 25 January 1961
Srinivasa Mills, Ltd, Madurai, was a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act on 7th January, 1946. A firm a partnership called Srinivasan and Co. was the managing agent of this Company. The terms of agreement between the managing agent and the company were reduced to writing and were attached to the articles of association of the company as Schedule A. The agreement provided that the managing agents should receive an allowance of Rs. 500 per month from the date of the registration of the company till the date of the commencement of the work by the company, and an allowance of Rs. 1,000 per month thereafter, after the Mill commenced work. At the inception the managing agent firm consisted only of three partners. Sri P. S. Thirumalai Iyengar subsequently became a partner of the managing agency firm under a written agreement with the firm. One of the terms of that agreement was that Thirumalai Iyengar should be the sole managing agent and should be the sole recipient of the remuneration provided for in the managing agency agreement with the company. He took charge of the management of the Mills on 10th June, 1948. The Board of Directors of the Srinivasa Mills Ltd. recognised the status of Thirumalai Iyengar as the sole managing agent, and in recognition thereof passed appropriate resolution at a duly convened meeting of the Board of Directors. The original partners of the managing agency firm raised disputes calling in question the status of Thirumalai Iyengar as the sole managing agent. They instituted a suit, O.S. No. 228 of 1949 on the file of the Sub-Court of Madurai impleading the company as the first defendant and Thirumalai Iyengar as the second defendant challenging the right of Thirumalai Iyengar to function as the sole managing agent. In that suit the company supported Thirumalai Iyengar, who contended that he was entitled to function as the sole managing agent of the company. Substantially the contention of Thirumalai Iyengar was upheld in that suit which was ultimately dismissed.
The company admittedly did not commence work. In O.P. No. 97 of 1955 on the file of the Original Side of this Court the company was directed to be wound up and the Official Receiver, Madurai, was appointed as the Official Liquidator. Tirumalai Iyengar filed a claim affidavit before the Official Liquidator claiming that a sum of Rs. 47,223-12-4 was due to him from the company as remuneration provided for under the managing agency agreement. He claimed remuneration at the rate of Rs. 500 per month from 1st April, 1949 to 26th September, 1955. Two of the shareholders of the company resisted the claim. The Official Liquidator, Madurai, held that the claimant was entitled to the remuneration asked for but the claim was barred by limitation in respect of remuneration due beyond three years before the date of the winding up. On this footing the claimant was allowed only a sum of Rs. 18,000 as and for remuneration. The claimant preferred C.M.P. No. 296 of 1957 before the District Court of Madurai and contended that he was entitled to remuneration for the whole period as prayed for by him in the claim affidavit. The shareholders who opposed the claim affidavit before the Official Liquidator preferred C.M.P. No. 338 of 1957 against the order of the Official Liquidator allowing in part the claim of Thirumalai Iyengar. The learned District Judge dismissed both petitions and confirmed the order of the Official Liquidator. This C.M.A. has been preferred by the claimant, Thirumalai Iyengar. The shareholders who contested the claim in the Court below have not preferred any appeal or cross-objections.
The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the claim of the appellant to receive remuneration for the period beyond three years prior to the date of the winding up is barred by limitation or not.
Mr. S.V. Rama Iyengar, learned counsel for the appellant, first contended that the time occupied by the pr
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.