<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1935 (1) TMI 20 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96671</link>
    <description>On winding up, unpaid-call liability of present and past shareholders was treated as a fresh statutory liability recoverable by liquidators under section 156(1) of the Indian Companies Act, subject only to the stated exceptions. The past-member exception for persons who had ceased to be members one year or more before commencement of winding up did not apply. Even where the Limitation Act governed the claim, the applicable period was treated as Article 120 of the First Schedule, running from default, so the recovery applications were within time. The earlier bar against recovery from the company itself was therefore not accepted as defeating liquidation recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:27:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1935 (1) TMI 20 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96671</link>
      <description>On winding up, unpaid-call liability of present and past shareholders was treated as a fresh statutory liability recoverable by liquidators under section 156(1) of the Indian Companies Act, subject only to the stated exceptions. The past-member exception for persons who had ceased to be members one year or more before commencement of winding up did not apply. Even where the Limitation Act governed the claim, the applicable period was treated as Article 120 of the First Schedule, running from default, so the recovery applications were within time. The earlier bar against recovery from the company itself was therefore not accepted as defeating liquidation recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96671</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>