https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96651 In winding-up proceedings, a shareholder's liability for unpaid calls was treated as a fresh and independent liability arising on liquidation, so the fact that the company's pre-liquidation suit for recovery had become time-barred did not defeat the claim. The objection based on limitation therefore failed. The court also held that mere notices threatening forfeiture did not amount to an actual forfeiture where no resolution was passed in the manner required by the articles of association; without a valid forfeiture, the shares continued to subsist for liability purposes. The objection based on forfeiture therefore failed, and the shareholders remained liable for the unpaid calls. en-us Tue, 19 Jun 1934 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:58:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96651 In winding-up proceedings, a shareholder's liability for unpaid calls was treated as a fresh and independent liability arising on liquidation, so the fact that the company's pre-liquidation suit for recovery had become time-barred did not defeat the claim. The objection based on limitation therefore failed. The court also held that mere notices threatening forfeiture did not amount to an actual forfeiture where no resolution was passed in the manner required by the articles of association; without a valid forfeiture, the shares continued to subsist for liability purposes. The objection based on forfeiture therefore failed, and the shareholders remained liable for the unpaid calls. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 19 Jun 1934 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96651