TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased defendant on record and in seeking to set aside the abatement should be excused. (ii) Whether the right to sue for recovery of money under section 86D of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 survives against the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, notwithstanding section 235 of the same Act.
Issue (i): Whether the delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased defendant on record and in seeking to set aside the abatement should be excused.
Analysis: The record disclosed a vague statement as to the time of death, while the plaintiff-company was at a different place from the deceased defendant's residence. In revision, the Court found no jurisdictional error in the lower court's conclusion that sufficient cause existed for the delay in filing the applications to bring the legal representatives on record and to set aside the abatement. The discretionary order of the lower court was therefore not open to interference under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Conclusion: The finding of sufficient cause was upheld and the abatement was validly set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the right to sue for recovery of money under section 86D of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 survives against the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, notwithstanding section 235 of the same Act.
Analysis: The suit was one for recovery of money based on the statutory liability created by section 86D, which imposed joint and several liability on directors for unpaid amounts on contravention. Section 235, by contrast, provided a special and limited procedure in winding-up proceedings for examining misfeasance and compelling repayment or contribution. The Court held that section 235 did not extinguish the general right of suit available to the company against its ex-directors, and the earlier authority under section 235 was confined to proceedings under that section alone.
Conclusion: The cause of action survived against the legal representatives, and the suit did not abate on the death of the fourth defendant.
Final Conclusion: The revision petitions failed because the order setting aside abatement and bringing the legal representatives on record was sustained, and the underlying suit was held maintainable against the deceased defendant's estate.
Ratio Decidendi: A suit for recovery based on a statutory civil liability survives against the legal representatives of a deceased defendant unless the statute creating the remedy expressly limits its operation to the deceased person alone; a special procedure in winding-up does not exclude the general remedy by suit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
