https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99462 In winding-up proceedings, a company's claim against its agent was held not to be barred by limitation where section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956 applied and there was no reliable proof of earlier termination of the agency or prior demand and refusal. Section 543 was found inapplicable because the respondent was only an agent. Liability was also proved because entries in regularly kept books of account, though insufficient by themselves under section 34 of the Evidence Act, were corroborated by the managing director's direct testimony that the agent had collected money and failed to remit it. The claim succeeded with costs. en-us Mon, 01 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:38:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99462 In winding-up proceedings, a company's claim against its agent was held not to be barred by limitation where section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956 applied and there was no reliable proof of earlier termination of the agency or prior demand and refusal. Section 543 was found inapplicable because the respondent was only an agent. Liability was also proved because entries in regularly kept books of account, though insufficient by themselves under section 34 of the Evidence Act, were corroborated by the managing director's direct testimony that the agent had collected money and failed to remit it. The claim succeeded with costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 01 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99462