JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - This is an application on behalf of the legal representatives of one Lala Raghu Mal to have their names removed from the list of contributories.

2. This application has been made as the result of our judgment delivered on 14th May 1929. It appears that Lala Raghu Mal subscribed for a number of shares. Later on, on 12th August 1922, he was induced to subscribe for a large number of further shares (Rs. 10,000 ordinary shares at Rs. 10 each and 250 preference shares at Rs. 100 each). On the same day, he made applications for shares and the Managing Agent of the company handed over to him a draft letter, which the company was to send, later on, in confirmation of the arrangement, in view of which Lala Raghu Mal subscribed for the additional shares. On 13th September 1923, the company confirmed the arrangement, by three letters, copies of which are to be found in the affidavit filed with the petition, under paras. 7 and 8. By virtue of the letters written by the company the representatives of Lala Raghu Mal claimed before us a large sum of money on the ground that the company had committed breaches of contracts and the claimants were entitled to a large amount of damages. We held that the agreements were void, being in contravention of Section 105, Companies Act. The applicants, thereupon, now say that if the agreements, on the basis of which they had claimed, are invalid, such must be the case with the purchase of shares. They, therefore, ask that their names should be removed from the list of contributories.

3. On behalf of the Official Liquidators two points have been raised. One is that the application is barrsd by time and the second is that on the merits, applicants are not entitled to succeed.

4. A learned counsel appeared from the Calcutta High Court, together with a counsel of this Court on behalf of the aplicants, and we have heard him and the learned counsel for the Official Liquidators. The points to be decided are: (1) whether the application is within time and (2) whether the allotment of shares was illegal, being based on a void contract and whether, therefore, the names of the applicants should be removed from the list of contributories.

5. On the first point of limitation, the learned counsel for the Official Liquidators argued that the applicant's names were ordered to be brought on the list of contributories so early as on 19th July 1927 and that, therefore, they could not come up to the Court, for removal of their names after the expiry of 30 days of that date, under Rule 58 of the rules framed by this Court under the Companies Act. Mr. Banerji, who has appeared on behalf of the applicants, argued that no notice was ever issued to or served on his clients as required by E. 57 of the rules framed by the Court and that, therefore, limitation has not even begun to run against his clients. He further argued that it was always open to the Court to rectify errors in the list of contributories and that this is contemplated by Rule 54 itself.

6. We need not decide whether the Court has got or not, power to rectify the list of contributories at any time. We shall assume that it has got that power. But the question is whether a party has a right to move the Court to rectify an alleged error, if that party has allowed the time given to him by the rules, to make the application, pass by.

7. The Rules 54 to 58 of the Company rules framed by this Court, bear on the question. Unfortunately, they are not very clear, though they have been taken mainly from the English rules. The modification made in the English rules has created a certain amount of difficulty, Putting, however, the same construction, as the learned counsel for the applicants wants, it would appear that the Official Liquidator is charged by Rule 54 to frame a list of contributories. Having done so, he has to obtain from the Court appointment of a date for settlement of the list. A notice is to be given by the Official. Liquidator to each and every