Share application money refund claim governed by Article 24 of the Limitation Act and barred by limitation.

Money paid as share application money for allotment of shares was treated as money received for the payer's use and, on the facts, was not shown to have been refunded. The company's compromise relating to a different share claim did not establish repayment. However, the refund claim was governed by Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, not Article 70, because the money was neither a deposit nor pawned movable property. Limitation therefore ran from receipt of the money, and the claim filed years later was time-barred. The appeal consequently failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amount paid towards share application money had been refunded to the appellant. (ii) Whether the claim for refund of share application money was barred by limitation, and whether it fell under Article 24 or Article 70 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the amount paid towards share application money had been refunded to the appellant.

Analysis: The amount was paid for allotment of shares and was reflected in the company's balance-sheet as share application money. The compromise relied upon by the company related to a different claim concerning shares already held and did not cover the amount paid for fresh allotment. The defence of prior repayment was not established.

Conclusion: The amount had not been shown to have been refunded; this issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for refund of share application money was barred by limitation, and whether it fell under Article 24 or Article 70 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Share application money was paid for the appellant's own use, namely allotment of shares, and was not a deposit or pawned movable property. Article 24 applied to money received for the plaintiff's use, while Article 70 applied only to movable property deposited or pawned. The claim therefore had to be treated under Article 24, with limitation running from receipt of the money, and the petition filed years later was out of time.

Conclusion: The claim was barred by limitation under Article 24, and Article 70 had no application; this issue was answered against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because, although repayment was not established, the winding-up claim itself was time-barred and could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Money paid for allotment of shares is money received for the payer's use and is governed by Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, not by Article 70.

---