Lahore High Court
Sir Shadi Lal, Fforder, JJ.
Sri Narain - Appellant
Versus
Liquidator, Union Bank of India - Respondent
Decided On : 24-12-1922
JUDGMENT
Fforde, J. - The appellant B. Sri Narain is a contributory of the Union Bank of India, Delhi, which is now in course of liquidation. The Official Liquidator has called upon B. Sri Narain under the provisions of Section 186 of the Indian Companies Act to pay to him certain sums of money amongst which is an item of Rs. 2,000. This sum of Rs. 2,000 is expressed to be payable upon foot of a promissory note, dated the 13th April 1911, made by the appellant, and payable to the order of the Union Bank of India on demand.
2. The District Judge of Delhi made an order under Section 186 calling upon the appellant to pay to the Official Liquidator the several sums demanded, and the appeal is brought in respect of the item of Rs. 2,000.
3. Under the Indian Limitation Act a suit to enforce payment of this note would be barred by time. This is admitted; but it is claimed on behalf of the Liquidator that this statute-barred debt may be enforced against the contributory by an order under Section 186, Sub-section (1), of the Indian Companies Act. The relevant part of the section reads as follows:
The Court may at any time after making a winding up order, make an order on any contributory for the time being settled on the list of contributories to pay in manner directed by the order any money due from him * * * to the Company exclusive of any money payable by him * * * by virtue of any call in pursunce of this Act.
4. It is contended by counsel for the Liquidator that the words "at any time" exclude the idea that there is any period of limitation within which the order may be made. In other words that the Court by virtue of this section may order the payment of any debt due by a contributory to the Company in liquidation regardless of the time when that debt was incurred. We are asked to hold that this section overrides the provisions of the Limitation Act, that it enables the Court to enforce by a summary order the paymant of a debt which it could net have enforced in an action at law. We cannot accept this view of the powers conferred upon the Court by Section 186. This section does not create new liabilities or confer new rights. It merely provides a summary procedure for enforcing existing legal liabilities. The words "at any time" can only mean at any time in the course of liquidation proceedings, commencing from the date of the winding up order. The section creats new machinery for bringing in debts due by a contributory to the Company, and nothing more.
5. We therefore, hold that the payment to the Liquidator of the Rs. 2,000 represented by the promissory note cannot be enforced in the manner sought. We accordingly allow the appeal with costs throughout.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.