Construction of company scheme term "depositors" excluded a matured depositor with a compromise decree, allowing execution to proceed.

A sanctioned scheme under the Companies Act was construed narrowly on the term "depositors" to determine whether it covered a depositor whose deposit had matured and who had already obtained a compromise decree for recovery. The court found the evidence of service of notice unsatisfactory and relied on the surrounding circumstances, including the later compromise decree and the bank's conduct, to conclude that such persons were not intended to be included within the scheme. The scheme therefore did not bind the depositor, and execution of the compromise decree could proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the scheme sanctioned under section 153 of the Companies Act bound the appellant depositor whose claim had matured and who had already obtained a compromise decree for recovery of the deposit.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the meaning of the word "depositors" in the scheme and whether it included persons whose deposits had already fallen due and who had instituted suits before the scheme was proposed. The evidence as to service of notice on the appellant was found unsatisfactory, and the surrounding circumstances, including the subsequent compromise decree and the bank's conduct, indicated that the appellant was not treated as a person intended to be covered by the scheme. On the materials, the scheme could not be read as binding the appellant.

Conclusion: The scheme was not binding on the appellant and the execution of the compromise decree could proceed.

---