Court rules no court fee needed for set off as defendant's claim was for balance, not full amount.

The court held that no court fee was required on the sum claimed as a set off as the defendant's claim was for a balance, not the full amount. It was found that there was no evidence of an agreement allowing the defendant to adjust the claimed sum in the accounts. The judge emphasized that special circumstances justifying the adjustment were lacking, and the plaintiff's consent to the adjustment was not proven. Additionally, the court ruled that there was no company lien on fees due to a director, leading to the dismissal of the petition with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Court-fee payable on the sum claimed as a set off.
2. Whether the defendant Company was entitled to adjust the sum due to them in the accounts.
3. Whether there were any special circumstances justifying the adjustment.
4. Whether the plaintiff had consented to the adjustment.
5. Company's lien on fees due to a director.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the court-fee payable on the amount claimed as a set off. The defendant argued that no court-fee was necessary on the sum claimed as a set off. However, the judge opined that the plea of set off did not arise as the defendant's claim was for a balance of Rs. 3-14-3, not the full amount claimed. The judge referred to a similar case and concluded that no court-fee was required on the written statement.

2. Moving on to the second issue, it was questioned whether the sum of Rs. 147-14-3 was genuinely due to the defendant Company as interest and if they were entitled to adjust it in the accounts. The plaintiff's counsel cited legal principles stating that without an agreement, there is no right of set off between parties. The judge highlighted the lack of evidence of any agreement between the parties for such an adjustment.

3. The third issue addressed whether there were any special circumstances justifying the adjustment claimed by the defendant. The defendant argued that as the plaintiff was a director and the interest was due to late payment of calls, the adjustment was justified. However, the judge referenced a case where a shareholder's set off was not allowed to prevent share forfeiture, indicating that such adjustments require consent.

4. Regarding the fourth issue of the plaintiff's consent to the adjustment, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had consented to the adjustment. However, the judge found no satisfactory proof of such consent. The plaintiff's presence at a meeting where the balance sheet was adopted was not deemed sufficient evidence of consent.

5. Finally, the issue of the company's lien on fees due to a director was discussed. The judge noted that while a company may have a lien on shares or dividends for money owed, there was no authority suggesting a similar lien on fees due to a director. Consequently, the judge upheld the lower court's order, dismissing the petition and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

---