Contributories list and share capital appropriation: technical notice objection failed, and membership was not forfeited.

An omission to raise the absence of notice under Rule 59 before the District Judge was treated as a technical objection that could not defeat the Official Liquidator. The appellant could rely only on objections already taken by other contributories, and those objections had been considered and rejected. Appropriation of the appellant's share capital towards the amount due did not terminate membership or amount to forfeiture of the share capital. The objection to inclusion in the contributories list therefore failed, and the appellant remained liable as a contributory.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could resist inclusion in the list of contributories on the ground that no notice was given under Rule 59 after settlement of the list, and whether appropriation of share capital towards the amount due terminated membership or effected forfeiture of the share capital.

Analysis: The absence of notice under Rule 59 was not a ground taken before the District Judge and was therefore treated as a mere technical objection incapable of defeating the Official Liquidator. On the merits, the appellant could raise only the same objections that had already been urged by other contributories. Those objections had been considered and rejected. The appropriation of the appellant's share capital towards the amount due to the fund did not amount to forfeiture of the share capital or termination of membership.

Conclusion: The objection based on want of notice failed, and the appellant remained liable as a contributory. The appeal was rejected in favour of the Official Liquidator.

---