Payment orders against deceased contributories are nullities; recovery lies instead against the deceased's estate under statutory contributory liability.

A payment order or decree entered against a deceased contributory is a nullity and therefore not executable: the court applied the common law principle that decrees against the dead lack validity and refused execution. Separately, placement of a deceased on the list of contributories creates an independent statutory remedy against the estate; the liability of legal representatives and heirs in due course of administration arises under the statutory scheme and permits recovery from the estate even though the original payment order remains non executable. Outcome: execution set aside; recovery must proceed against the estate under the statutory contributory mechanism.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a payment order (decree) made against a deceased contributory is executable; (ii) Whether, notwithstanding such payment order, the remedy lies against the estate of the deceased under section 160(1) of the Indian Companies Act.

Issue (i): Whether a payment order made against a deceased contributory is executable.

Analysis: The Court examined the common law rule that a decree against a dead person is a nullity and considered authorities addressing whether a payment order against a deceased person can be executed. The Court distinguished section 160(1) as creating liability of legal representatives and heirs in due course of administration but not altering the executability of payment orders made against a dead man. The Court noted prior decisions that refused execution of payment orders against dead persons and treated such orders as nullities.

Conclusion: A payment order made against a deceased contributory is a nullity and is not executable.

Issue (ii): Whether the remedy for recovery lies against the estate of the deceased under section 160(1) of the Indian Companies Act despite the payment order being a nullity.

Analysis: The Court analysed section 160(1), which makes legal representatives and heirs liable in due course of administration to contribute to the company's assets in discharge of the deceased's liability. The Court held that section 160(1) does not validate or make executable a payment order against a dead person but provides an independent statutory remedy against the estate where the deceased has been placed on the list of contributories.

Conclusion: The remedy against the deceased contributory lies against his estate in due course of administration under section 160(1) of the Indian Companies Act; the statutory liability arises from placement on the list of contributories and not from the payment order.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were resolved by holding that payment orders against deceased persons are nullities and cannot be executed, while recovery may be pursued against the estate under section 160(1) of the Indian Companies Act; accordingly, the Letters Patent appeal was dismissed and the execution order set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment order or decree made against a deceased person is a nullity and not executable; where a deceased person has been placed on the list of contributories, recovery is available against his legal representatives and heirs in due course of administration under section 160(1) of the Indian Companies Act.

---