1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court rules in favor of appellant in share application money refund dispute, rejects time-barred claim.</h1> The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the refund of share application money. The court ... Winding up – Circumstances in which company may be wound up by Tribunal Issues involved:1. Refund of share application money.2. Limitation period for the claim of refund.Refund of share application money:The appellant applied for 110 shares in a company by paying Rs. 1.10 lakhs, but no shares were allotted. The company claimed to have refunded the money in 1988 as part of a settlement, which the appellant disputed. The company also contended that replies were sent to the appellant's notices demanding refund. The learned company judge held that the money was not refunded and observed that the appellant continuously sought refund without receiving any response until the company claimed repayment as part of the settlement. The judge rejected the company's claim of repayment and ruled in favor of the appellant.Limitation period for the claim of refund:The company argued that the claim for refund was time-barred based on the Limitation Act, 1963. The company judge accepted this argument, stating that the claim fell under article 24 of the Act, which governs the refund of money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use. As the claim was filed in 1993, exceeding the three-year limitation period from when the money was received, the judge held it was barred by time. The appellant's counsel contended that the claim should be considered under article 70, which deals with movable property deposited or pawned, and argued that the limitation period should start from the date of refusal after demand. However, the judge upheld the application of article 24 and dismissed the appeal, citing relevant legal precedents and distinguishing them from the present case.In conclusion, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the arguments presented and ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the refund of share application money. The court upheld the decision that the claim was time-barred under article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and rejected the appellant's contention that it should be considered under article 70.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
