TMI Blog1931 (3) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 25th of November, 1929, a simple money decree for Rs. 5,100 odd was obtained by the respondent bank against the company. A transfer certificate having been obtained, execution proceedings were taken at Rawalpindi in June, 1930. A warrant for attachment of certain house property belonging to the judgment-debtor was issued. Attachment was effected on the 25th of August, 1930, and the usual notice under O. XXI, r. 66, was issued. After certain proceedings the decree-holder filed a plan of the house which was found to be defective. He was accordingly directed on the 2nd of January, 1931, to file a corrected plan on the 13th of that month. In the meantime, on the 6th of December, 1930, the company passed a resolution to go into voluntary liqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. 224 that where a judgment is recovered against a company which is in voluntary liquidation, the invariable practice of the Court is to stay execution of the judgment unless there are very exceptional reasons for exercising its discretion otherwise. The reason for this rule is described by Lord Atkin at page 418 Page of [1924] 2 KB (Ed.) of the report, that "the execution, if followed, would necessarily interfere with the distribution of the assets pari passu. " Under section 207 of the Indian Companies Act one of the consequences which ensues in the voluntary winding-up of a company is that its assets have to be applied in satisfaction of its liability pari passu and it is laid down that, unless the articles of association otherw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been brought by an alleged shareholder who had repudiated his share and had claimed re-payment of the money paid, on the ground that the conditions on which the allotment was made had not been fulfilled by the company. The learned Judge after an examination of the facts of that case, found that no good would accrue by staying the action. It is obvious that the circumstances of the present case are wholly different. Another case cited was Amrit Lal Kundu v. Anukul Chandra Das 43 C. 586; 34 Ind. Cas. 253; 20 CWN 358. In that case, however, the attached property had actually been sold and the sale proceeds brought into the executing Court, before the application was made to the High Court. After careful consideration, I am of opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
