https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96618 Call money and allotment money became time-barred three years after each instalment fell due, and forfeiture could not revive debts already barred by limitation. The company's reliance on its articles and the shareholder's continued name in the register was rejected because sums "owing" at forfeiture mean only amounts then legally due and legally recoverable. Distinctions were drawn from winding-up authorities, since a liquidator's statutory powers and the position of a company in liquidation differ from those of a solvent going concern. The suit was therefore barred by limitation, and recovery of the unpaid amounts through forfeiture was unavailable. en-us Fri, 03 Mar 1933 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:50:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96618 Call money and allotment money became time-barred three years after each instalment fell due, and forfeiture could not revive debts already barred by limitation. The company's reliance on its articles and the shareholder's continued name in the register was rejected because sums "owing" at forfeiture mean only amounts then legally due and legally recoverable. Distinctions were drawn from winding-up authorities, since a liquidator's statutory powers and the position of a company in liquidation differ from those of a solvent going concern. The suit was therefore barred by limitation, and recovery of the unpaid amounts through forfeiture was unavailable. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 03 Mar 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96618