Fraudulent preference under company law did not permit summary recovery against a creditor receiving payment.

The Companies Act provision on fraudulent preference was treated as defining what amounts to a fraudulent preference, not as creating a summary procedure for recovery of money paid to a creditor. The Court held that the Act's summary machinery was confined to the persons expressly covered by the provision invoked, including contributories and certain officers or agents, and did not extend to a creditor who had received payment alleged to be a fraudulent preference. As no statutory summary remedy was available on those facts, the application of that kind was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under the Companies Act could be maintained by summary procedure to recover money paid to a creditor as an alleged fraudulent preference.

Analysis: The application was treated as one intended to invoke the provision dealing with fraudulent preference, but the Court held that the relevant section merely defines what constitutes a fraudulent preference and does not itself create a summary method for recovery. The summary machinery under the Companies Act was held to be confined to the persons specifically covered by the provision invoked, such as contributories and certain officers or agents, and did not extend to a creditor who had received payment by way of alleged fraudulent preference. As no statutory summary remedy was available on the facts, the proper course would not be an application of this kind.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---