Estate administration required for deceased contributory's liability; no direct personal payment order against heirs or legal representatives.

Where a contributory dies before settlement of the list of contributories, liability of the heirs or legal representatives is enforceable only in due course of administration of the deceased's estate under the Companies Act, 1913. Section 160 treats such representatives as contributories accordingly and contemplates proceedings against the deceased's property, not a direct personal payment order. The High Court therefore held that a personal order against the heir or legal representative was not maintainable on the application as framed, and recovery had to proceed through administration of the estate.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the death of a contributory before settlement of the list of contributories, a personal order for payment could be made against his heir or legal representative, or whether the proper remedy was to proceed against the deceased contributory's estate in due course of administration under the Companies Act, 1913.

Analysis: The relevant scheme of the Companies Act, 1913 distinguished between contributories in their own right and persons liable as representatives of others. Section 160 provided that where a contributory dies before or after being placed on the list of contributories, his legal representatives and heirs are liable in due course of administration and are contributories accordingly. The provision also contemplated that, where default was made, proceedings should be taken for administering the property of the deceased contributory. Read with the provisions governing settlement of the list of contributories and the Court's power to make orders thereon, the statute indicated that recovery from the heirs or legal representatives had to be pursued through administration of the deceased's estate, not by a personal payment order against them.

Conclusion: A personal order against the heir or legal representative was not maintainable on the application as framed. The proper course was to proceed against the estate of the deceased contributory in due course of administration, so the application failed.

Final Conclusion: The claim for recovery from the deceased contributory's heir was rejected in its present form, and the remedy was confined to estate administration proceedings under the winding-up provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contributory dies, the liability of heirs or legal representatives to contribute in winding-up proceedings is enforceable through administration of the deceased's estate and not by a direct personal order against them.

---