Company liquidation and set-off rules: insolvency provisions were not fully imported, and a time-barred claim could not be used as set-off.

Section 229 of the Companies Act was treated as limited to the rules governing provable debts and creditor priorities in insolvency; it did not import the whole Provincial Insolvency Act to bar a civil suit against a company in voluntary liquidation without leave, so the suit remained maintainable. A set-off under Order 8 Rule 6 CPC had to be a legally recoverable and enforceable ascertained sum; a time-barred pronote claim could not qualify, so the set-off was rejected. Where the decree-sheet omitted the conditional terms reflected in the judgment, the Court treated the decree as declaratory in substance and corrected the arithmetical error to match the admitted figures.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 229 of the Companies Act imported Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act so as to bar a civil suit against a company in voluntary liquidation without leave of court; (ii) Whether a time-barred claim could be allowed by way of set-off; (iii) Whether the decree should be treated as a declaratory decree and corrected for arithmetical error in place of the defective decree-sheet.

Issue (i): Whether Section 229 of the Companies Act imported Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act so as to bar a civil suit against a company in voluntary liquidation without leave of court.

Analysis: Section 229 speaks only of the rules governing the respective rights of creditors and debts provable in insolvency, while Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act deals with the institution of suits after adjudication. Reading the provisions with the General Clauses Act definition of "rule", the Court held that the statutory language did not justify importing the whole insolvency regime into company liquidation. The existence of other provisions in the Companies Act dealing expressly with suits and liquidation also showed that no such broad incorporation was intended.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred, and the trial court had jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether a time-barred claim could be allowed by way of set-off.

Analysis: A set-off under Order 8, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be an ascertained sum, legally recoverable, and enforceable by the defendant against the plaintiff in the same capacity. The alleged pronote claim was already time-barred and had previously been dismissed on that ground. A barred claim could not satisfy the requirement of legal recoverability, and the attempted set-off was therefore not maintainable.

Conclusion: The claim for set-off was rejected against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the decree should be treated as a declaratory decree and corrected for arithmetical error in place of the defective decree-sheet.

Analysis: The judgment itself showed that the trial court intended only conditional relief, with immediate payment of one instalment and the balance to follow in due course with other creditors. The decree-sheet omitted those conditions and thus misrecorded the judgment. The plaint was broad enough to support declaratory relief, and manifest arithmetical mistakes could be corrected. The Court therefore maintained the substance of the relief while correcting the amount to reflect the admitted figures.

Conclusion: The decree was modified into a declaratory decree with a corrected immediate monetary recovery component.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the jurisdictional and set-off objections, but the decree was corrected to reflect the proper amount and its declaratory character, with both sides left to bear their own costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 229 of the Companies Act does not import the whole Provincial Insolvency Act into company liquidation proceedings, and a set-off must satisfy the requirement of legal recoverability under Order 8, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---