https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96622 Two principal issues arise: whether an articles provision (Article 45) can impose an independent contractual liability to pay "moneys owing" at the date of forfeiture even if the remedy is time-barred, and whether an allotment made after more than a year without notice is binding. The note concludes that "money owing" may denote an existing debt irrespective of legal recoverability, so Article 45 can create independent liability; and that an allotment made after an unreasonable delay without notice is repudiable and does not bind the applicant, rendering any consequent forfeiture ineffective. en-us Tue, 19 Sep 1933 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:03:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96622 Two principal issues arise: whether an articles provision (Article 45) can impose an independent contractual liability to pay "moneys owing" at the date of forfeiture even if the remedy is time-barred, and whether an allotment made after more than a year without notice is binding. The note concludes that "money owing" may denote an existing debt irrespective of legal recoverability, so Article 45 can create independent liability; and that an allotment made after an unreasonable delay without notice is repudiable and does not bind the applicant, rendering any consequent forfeiture ineffective. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 19 Sep 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96622