Valid call and notice are required before unpaid share capital can be enforced; claim failed without service.

Unpaid share capital is enforceable only when a valid call is made and notified in the manner required by the articles of association and the governing statute; a directors' resolution alone does not create an enforceable liability. Because no valid notice of call had been served, the claim for the balance on the shares failed for want of cause of action. A further objection that the appeals were incompetent because the suits were cognizable by a Court of Small Causes was rejected under the relevant Companies Act provisions, which governed the contributory dispute and appellate forum. The lower appellate decrees were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff could enforce the unpaid share capital against the defendants without a valid notice of call having been served; (ii) whether the appeals were incompetent on the ground that the suits were cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.

Issue (i): whether the plaintiff could enforce the unpaid share capital against the defendants without a valid notice of call having been served

Analysis: The right to call up unpaid share capital existed, but it had to be exercised in the manner prescribed by the articles of association and the Act. A mere resolution of the directors did not by itself constitute a valid call. Service of notice in pursuance of the resolution was necessary, and the lower appellate finding was that no such notice had been served on the defendants. The plaintiff, having purchased the rights of the company, could not enforce the liability in the absence of a valid call.

Conclusion: The liability for the balance due on the shares was not enforceable in the present proceedings, and the claim failed for want of cause of action.

Issue (ii): whether the appeals were incompetent on the ground that the suits were cognizable by a Court of Small Causes

Analysis: The objection was tested against the statutory provisions governing contributories and the appellate forum under the Companies Act. In view of those provisions, the suits were not treated as ordinary Small Cause matters, and the objection was rejected.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection to the competence of the appeals was overruled.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on the merits because the plaintiff had not established an enforceable call against the defendants, and the lower appellate decrees were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability for unpaid share capital, though existing in law, becomes enforceable only upon a valid call made and notified in the manner required by the articles of association and the governing statute.

---