https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97573 Forfeiture of shares under the articles of association was treated as creating an independent contractual liability to pay amounts owing at the time of forfeiture, even where recovery of the original call money was already time-barred. The Court distinguished a company's call claim from a contractual claim under the articles, holding that the latter fell within the limitation rule applicable to breach of contractual obligation. Limitation was said to bar the remedy rather than extinguish the debt, except where section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied. On that basis, forfeiture gave rise to a fresh cause of action and the unpaid amount remained enforceable. en-us Fri, 23 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jul 2025 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97573 Forfeiture of shares under the articles of association was treated as creating an independent contractual liability to pay amounts owing at the time of forfeiture, even where recovery of the original call money was already time-barred. The Court distinguished a company's call claim from a contractual claim under the articles, holding that the latter fell within the limitation rule applicable to breach of contractual obligation. Limitation was said to bar the remedy rather than extinguish the debt, except where section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied. On that basis, forfeiture gave rise to a fresh cause of action and the unpaid amount remained enforceable. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 23 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97573