TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act") for winding up of the respondent-company, M/s. Hamco Industries P. Ltd., Jalandhar (hereinafter called "the company")/ has been dismissed. Before adverting to the controversy raised in the appeal, the relevant facts may first be noticed. The company wanted to float some shares with a view to increase its capital. The appellant applied for allotment of 110 shares in his name and sent a duly filled share application to the company along with a sum of Rs. 1.10 lakhs vide cheque No. 219479 dated May 10,1982. The cheque was encashed and receipt admitted by the company. This amount is also reflected in its balance-sheet as share application money. The company, however did not float any fresh shares and, therefore, none was allotted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. The respondent-company contested the petition and contented that it had refunded the share application money of Rs. 1.10 lakhs to the appellant in the year 1988. It claimed that the appellant, his wife and children had filed a suit against the company in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Jalandhar, claiming various amounts due to them. However, the suit was compromised on September 15, 1988 and the company had paid a consolidated sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs to settle all claims whatsoever of the appellant and his family. The case of the company was that the sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs paid on September 15, 1988, while settling the disputes in the suit included the amount of Rs. 1.10 lakhs claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as for the first time that the defence was taken that the amount had been repaid to the appellant in terms of the compromise ..." On the question of limitation, the learned company judge has accepted the stand of the company that the claim of the appellant is barred by limitation. It has been held that the claim for refund of share application money would be governed by article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short "the 1963 Act") and not by article 70 of the said Act as claimed by the appellant. According to the learned company judge article 70 applies to the recovery of movable property deposited or pawned from a depository or pawnee. On the other hand, article 24 is a provision which specifically deals with the refund of money paya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... replies to the notices vide Letters dated February 11,1991 and October 1,1993, were to be accepted, the dates of those letters would be the date of refusal after demand and limitation of 3 years under article 70 of the 1963 Act would start from the said dates. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following authorities as under: ( i ) Zila Parishad v. Banarsi Dass Kapur, AIR 1973 Punj. Har. 276. ( ii ) Central Warehousing Corporation v. Central Bank of India Ltd., AIR 1974 AP 8. ( iii ) Union of India v. Gangadhar Mimraj, AIR 1962 Patna 372. We have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant provisions of the 1963 Act and the authorities cited before us. Description of suits as per artic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t arise for the consideration of the learned judges. This judgment is, therefore, of no help to the petitioner. I, therefore, hold that the claim in the instant case is governed by article 24 of the 1963 Act and the same is barred by time." The decisions in Gangadhar Mimraj, AIR 1962 Patna 372 and Central Warehousing Corporation cases, AIR 1974 AP 8, have been cited in support of the contention that the money advanced was a movable property within the meaning of article 70 of the 1963 Act. This issue is purely of academic interest in view of our finding that article 70 applies to the recovery of movable property deposited or pawned whereas article 24 governs a claim of refund of money advanced for the plaintiffs own use. Thus, even if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
