Limitation and statutory liability in winding up: unpaid call money remained enforceable, but expired special relief could not be revived.

Limitation was held to bar only the remedy for enforcing an unpaid call in ordinary proceedings, not to extinguish the contributory's underlying statutory liability in winding up, so the claim remained maintainable. The court distinguished contractual debts from the distinct liability arising from membership and read the Limitation Act strictly, rejecting reliance on article 112 for the liquidation call. It also held that relief under section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 could not be claimed after the section's fixed statutory life had expired, because the saving clause preserved only acts done or omitted during its operation. Both contentions therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the liability of a contributory to pay unpaid call money in winding up is extinguished when the period for enforcing the call had already expired before the winding-up proceedings commenced; (ii) Whether relief under section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 could still be claimed after the statutory life of that section had expired.

Issue (i): Whether the liability of a contributory to pay unpaid call money in winding up is extinguished when the period for enforcing the call had already expired before the winding-up proceedings commenced.

Analysis: The liability of a shareholder to contribute in winding up was treated as a statutory liability arising from membership and not as a mere contractual debt. The expiry of limitation was held to bar the remedy for enforcing the call in an ordinary suit, but not to extinguish the underlying liability. The Limitation Act was construed strictly, and article 112 was held inapplicable to the call enforced in liquidation. The reasoning also distinguished authority dealing with contractual debts of the company from the distinct statutory liability of contributories.

Conclusion: The appellant's liability was not extinguished by lapse of limitation, and the claim to enforce the unpaid call was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether relief under section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 could still be claimed after the statutory life of that section had expired.

Analysis: Section 19 was held to operate only for the period expressly fixed by the statute, namely ten years from 15 August 1947. The saving language in sub-section (6) was construed as preserving consequences of acts done or omitted under the section during its life, and not as extending the time for making a fresh claim after the section had ceased to operate. The court refused to enlarge the statutory period on equitable considerations.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to invoke section 19 after its expiry.

Final Conclusion: Both contentions of the appellant failed, and the order against the contributory was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Expiry of limitation ordinarily bars the remedy and does not extinguish a statutory liability in winding up, and a special statutory relief cannot be claimed once the statute creating it has lapsed unless the saving clause plainly preserves that right.

---