<?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 (6) TMI 14 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96681</link>
    <description>A statutory contribution claim in liquidation under Section 156 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 was treated as distinct from enforcement of the original time-barred share-call debt. The liquidator could still recover the unpaid amount on the shares from former contributories because the liquidation remedy created a new statutory liability, even though the underlying call debt could not be sued upon as such. Recovery was confined to unpaid capital under the statute, however, so contractual interest under the articles of association was not recoverable. The substantive contribution claim was upheld, but interest was disallowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 02 Jun 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:48:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133739" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1935 (6) TMI 14 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96681</link>
      <description>A statutory contribution claim in liquidation under Section 156 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 was treated as distinct from enforcement of the original time-barred share-call debt. The liquidator could still recover the unpaid amount on the shares from former contributories because the liquidation remedy created a new statutory liability, even though the underlying call debt could not be sued upon as such. Recovery was confined to unpaid capital under the statute, however, so contractual interest under the articles of association was not recoverable. The substantive contribution claim was upheld, but interest was disallowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 02 Jun 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>