TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Ex-Director Wins Claim for Remuneration Despite Delays; Court Orders Payment Without Disrupting Prior Dividends.</h1> <h3>Ganeshilal Gupta Versus Bharatpur Oil Mills Through Official</h3> Ganeshilal Gupta Versus Bharatpur Oil Mills Through Official - 1972 WLN 68 Issues:- Application for relief under Rule 177 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for recovery of director's remuneration.- Opposition by Official Liquidator based on delay in filing claim, denial of responsibility, and prematurity of the application.Analysis:1. The applicant, an ex-director of a company under winding-up, filed an application seeking recovery of his director's remuneration for a specific period. The Official Liquidator opposed the application citing three main grounds, including the delay in filing the claim beyond the prescribed deadline, lack of cogent reasons for the delay, and the declaration of a dividend during the interim period. The applicant, however, explained the delay due to old age and illness, asserting that he believed other directors had filed his claim as requested. The court noted that while there was a significant delay, it was within the limitation period, and the Companies Act only excluded late claimants from benefiting from distributions made before proving their debt.2. The court referred to Rules 177 and 178, highlighting that while Rule 177 allows relief to creditors failing to file proof timely, Rule 178 restricts late claimants from disturbing prior dividends but allows payment from available funds. Citing precedents like In re General Rolling Stock Company, the court emphasized that creditors could prove debts until final asset distribution without disturbing previous dividends. The court also referenced legal authorities like Buckley on the Companies Acts and previous case laws to support the principle that late claims do not disrupt prior dividend payments.3. Addressing the Official Liquidator's objection regarding the applicant's denial of responsibility to file a statement of affairs due to resignation, the court deemed this issue related to proof sufficiency, to be examined by the Official Liquidator. The court noted the applicant's resignation communication effective from a specific date, emphasizing that the entitlement to remuneration hinged on acceptance of resignation.4. Lastly, the Official Liquidator's argument of prematurity due to the claim not initially filed with them was dismissed by the court. The court clarified that Rule 177 allowed creditors to seek relief directly from the court if they failed to file proof with the liquidator within the stipulated timeframe. Consequently, the court directed the Official Liquidator to assess the applicant's debt in accordance with the law, with the applicant being liable to pay costs to the Official Liquidator.This detailed analysis of the judgment underscores the court's considerations regarding the application for relief, the objections raised by the Official Liquidator, and the legal principles governing late claims in the context of company liquidation proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
