https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96537 Under Table A, a call notice did not itself forfeit shares where a further directors' resolution was required, so the shareholders remained liable as contributories in the winding-up. The limitation defence also failed because contributory liability is a distinct statutory liability arising in winding-up and is not defeated by limitation applicable to the underlying call. However, section 184 of the Companies Act, 1913 limited the liability of legal representatives of deceased shareholders to the extent of the estate assets that had come into their hands, so the order had to be modified accordingly. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 1930 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:01:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96537 Under Table A, a call notice did not itself forfeit shares where a further directors' resolution was required, so the shareholders remained liable as contributories in the winding-up. The limitation defence also failed because contributory liability is a distinct statutory liability arising in winding-up and is not defeated by limitation applicable to the underlying call. However, section 184 of the Companies Act, 1913 limited the liability of legal representatives of deceased shareholders to the extent of the estate assets that had come into their hands, so the order had to be modified accordingly. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 23 Jul 1930 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96537