H K DAS SHARMA Vs. INDIA G FINANCE
LAWS(DLH)-1980-4-26
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 14,1980

H.K.DAS SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
INDIA.G.FIN. Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

B.I.F.R. VS. UMI SPECIAL STEEL LTD [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-1-31] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sachar - (1.)[United India General Finance Co. was ordered to be wound up on 12.8.68. Appellant on 12.6.67 had asked Chowkidar of the Company to give a truck of the Company to respondent 2. Latter did not give any receipt and there was no record. O.L. on 9.9.69. asked respondent 2 about the position of the truck who did not care to reply until 13.9.72 when he took the stand that truck was never delievered to him. The date of denial about liability by appellant was 31.5.72. O.L. filed the claim application on 17.10.73. Appellant raised the contention that the claim was barred by time and claim could not be made against him U/S 446 of the Act. Single Judge held again him and he filed appeal]. After giving above facts, Judgment is :
(2.)Mr Jain the learned counsel for the appellant challenges the finding of the learned Judge as to the applicablity of Section 10 of the Limitation Act, the contention being that the property of the Company that is the vehicle cannot be said to be vested in the Director. He has referred to the Bank of Multan Ltd. v. Hukam Chand (AIR 1923 Lahore 58(2) ) which has held that the property is not vested in the company director and Section 10 of Limitation Act is not applicable. He also seeks aid from Mis. Brahmayya & Co. Official Liquidators Hanuman Bank Ltd. v. V.S. Ramaswami Aiyar AIR 1966 Madras 247 that the directors are not the trustees. We do not deem it necessary to decide this aspect of the case because as we shall presently show the claim was within time under Section 446 of the Act, as falling within Article 137 of Limitation Act and it is not necessary to invoke any other provision of the Limitation Act. For similar reasons also that we do not intend to decide about the applicability of Article 70 of the Limitation Act which finding was also challenged by Mr. Jain.
(3.)We shall first deal with the question of limitation on the assumption that an application under Section 446 of the Act was maintainable. We are saying this because Mr. Jain has contended and which contention we shall deal a little later that an application under Section 446 of the Act is not maintainable against the appellant.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.