Summary company law remedy cannot revive time-barred claims or create new liability under section 186

Section 186 of the Indian Companies Act was treated as a summary remedy only, available where the underlying money claim remained recoverable in an ordinary suit. The Privy Council held that the provision did not create a new liability or override limitation, so claims already time-barred when the liquidators applied could not be enforced. It also rejected reliance on section 65 of the Indian Contract Act for the Rs. 35,000 claim, holding that, absent special circumstances, discovery of voidness is referred to the date of the agreement, leaving the claim time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application by liquidators under section 186 of the Indian Companies Act could recover sums which were already barred by limitation in a suit by the company; (ii) whether section 186 created a new right or only provided a summary procedure for enforcing existing liabilities; (iii) whether the Rs. 35,000 claim was kept alive by section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 on the footing that the agreement was discovered to be void only during later litigation.

Issue (i): Whether an application by liquidators under section 186 of the Indian Companies Act could recover sums which were already barred by limitation in a suit by the company.

Analysis: The relevant inquiry was whether the sums sought by the liquidators were, on the date of the application, money that could still have been recovered by the company in a suit. The Court held that section 186 must be read with the Limitation Act so that only money due and recoverable in a suit falls within its scope. If the underlying claim was already time-barred when the liquidators applied, the section could not be used to defeat the debtor's limitation defence. On the facts, all three items were barred by limitation when the application was made.

Conclusion: The application under section 186 could not succeed in respect of any of the three sums.

Issue (ii): Whether section 186 created a new right or only provided a summary procedure for enforcing existing liabilities.

Analysis: The Court held that section 186 was a procedural provision intended to provide a summary remedy against contributory-debtors, not a source of new substantive rights. The power to order payment was discretionary, and that discretion could not be used to deprive a respondent of a defence that would have been available in an ordinary suit. Accordingly, if a claim was already unenforceable by reason of limitation, section 186 could not revive it.

Conclusion: Section 186 did not create any new liability or revive time-barred claims.

Issue (iii): Whether the Rs. 35,000 claim was kept alive by section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 on the footing that the agreement was discovered to be void only during later litigation.

Analysis: The Court rejected the contention that the right to recover arose only upon later discovery of the agreement's invalidity. In the absence of special circumstances, the date of discovery for purposes of section 65 is the date of the agreement itself. On that footing, the claim had accrued long before the application and was already barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The Rs. 35,000 claim was not saved by section 65 and remained time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The liquidators' recovery application failed because the claims were not enforceable within the summary jurisdiction invoked, and the appeal therefore succeeded with the liquidators' application dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A liquidator's summary application under section 186 can reach only money that remains recoverable in an ordinary suit by the company; it cannot be used to enforce a claim already barred by limitation or to create a new liability.

---