- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Habib Rowji v. Standard Aluminium
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiffs were a joint-stock company incorporated on 27 February 1920 under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913, with capital of Rs. 25,00,000 divided into 25,000 shares of Rs. 100 each. On 31 March 1920 the defendant applied for and was allotted 100 shares, paying the application money (Rs. 1,000). The company made a first call of Rs. 15 per share payable on or before 5 August 1920 and notified the defendant; interest at 9% per annum was specified for late payment. A further call of Rs. 15 per share payable on or before 20 February 1921 was made and notified by resolution of 27 January 1921.
The defendant did not pay the allotment or the calls. On 15 April 1921 the directors served a notice requiring payment with interest and warned that failure to pay within twenty days (on or before 5 May 1921) would lead to forfeiture and recovery proceedings. The defendant did not comply. By a board resolution dated 3 August 1921 the defendant's shares were forfeited in accordance with the articles of association.
The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 5,959-5-0 with interest on Rs. 4,694-12-3 at 9% from 29 July 1924 until judgment. The defendant admitted the plaint's statements but pleaded that the claim (for allotment money and for the first and second calls) was barred by limitation because the amounts had become due more than three years before the suit. At trial the learned Judge held the plaintiffs' claims on all three amounts were not barred and entered a decree for the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs' suit to recover allotment money and the amounts called (first and second calls) was barred by the law of limitation (specifically with reference to Article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act).
- Whether Article 32 of the company's articles of association, which preserves liability of a member whose shares have been forfeited, creates a new cause of action (and therefore a new starting point for the period of limitation) or merely continues the original cause of action for the original dates when the calls fell due.
- Whether, and to what extent, interest could be recovered in respect of sums claimed after forfeiture under the relevant articles and precedents relied upon.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant / Appellant's Arguments
- The defendant admitted the facts in the plaint but contended that the suit was barred by limitation in respect of the allotment money and both calls because those sums became due and payable more than three years before the suit.
- On appeal it was argued that the suit was essentially for payment of allotment money and calls and thus fell under Article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act; therefore it was barred by limitation.
- It was further argued that, although Article 32 of the articles of association imposed liability despite forfeiture, that provision did not create a different cause of action: the cause of action remained the same as the original claim and the period of limitation accordingly did not reset.
Plaintiffs / Respondents' Position (as relied upon by the Court)
- The plaintiffs relied on Article 32 of the articles of association, which states that a member whose shares have been forfeited "shall, notwithstanding, be liable to pay, and shall forthwith pay to the company, all calls, instalments, interest and expenses owing upon or in respect of such shares at the time of the forfeiture together with interest thereon, from the time of forfeiture until payment ... and the directors may enforce the payment thereof if they think fit".
- The plaintiffs contended (and the court accepted) that Article 32 constituted a special contract creating a fresh liability and, therefore, a fresh cause of action arising on the date of forfeiture (3 August 1921), from which the period of limitation would run.
- The plaintiffs (and the court) relied on authorities and statutory analogies to show that a contractual provision in the articles can give rise to a distinct right of action enforceable after forfeiture.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Stocken's Case (referred to as "Stocker's Case") | The articles of association may contain a forfeiture clause which extinguishes rights incident to the share, but a later provision in the same clause can create an independent right to recover sums owing at the date of forfeiture. In the reported decision, the court held that interest was not payable where the forfeiture clause only created an independent right to recover the sum due at the date of forfeiture and no demand for interest had been made after forfeiture. | The court relied on Stocken's Case to explain that a forfeiture clause can be construed strictly and that a special provision in the articles may create a new right of action after forfeiture. The decision supported the view that Article 32 could give rise to an independent contractual right enforceable after the forfeiture date. |
| Ladies' Dress Association v. Pulbrook | That case held that an action was maintainable against a defendant after liquidation for unpaid calls; the defendant was liable as a debtor to the company and not merely as a contributory, notwithstanding certain provisions of the Companies Act 1882 (section 38 subsections 1 and 3). | The court cited this decision analogically to illustrate that where the articles or statutory provisions create a debtor relationship (or where contractual provisions operate to create such liability), an action can be maintained against the contributor as a debtor rather than only through contributory/liquidation mechanisms. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded by examining the text of Article 32 of the plaintiff company's articles of association. It noted that, absent such a provision, a forfeiture normally results in the member ceasing to be a member and in his losing liability for moneys which at the date of forfeiture were presently payable by him in respect of the shares. Accordingly, recovery after forfeiture for past calls would generally not be maintainable unless the articles provided otherwise.
The court analysed Article 32 and observed that it creates an express obligation by which a member "whose shares have been forfeited" remains liable to pay all calls, instalments, interest and expenses owing upon or in respect of the shares at the time of forfeiture, with interest from the time of forfeiture until payment, and that the directors may enforce payment. The court characterized this obligation as a "special contract" contained in the articles.
Drawing on Stocken's Case, the court accepted the proposition that where the articles contain a forfeiture provision and then go on to provide for recovery after forfeiture, the latter provision can be construed as creating a new and independent right to recover the sums due at the date of forfeiture. The court explained Stocken's Case as holding that a forfeiture clause "simply gave an independent right to recover after forfeiture the sum due at the date of forfeiture."
The court also referred by analogy to Ladies' Dress Association v. Pulbrook and to statutory provisions (section 61 of the Indian Companies Act (VI of 1882) and section 38 of the Companies Act 1882) to indicate that corporate law recognizes situations in which former members can be treated as debtors or made to contribute post-forfeiture or in winding up. These references were used to support the understanding that contractual provisions in the articles can create enforceable obligations post-forfeiture.
Applying these principles to the facts, the court concluded that Article 32 created a fresh contractual liability which arose on the date the shares were forfeited (3 August 1921). Because the suit was instituted on 31 July 1924, within three years of the date of forfeiture, the period of limitation had not expired for the fresh cause of action created by Article 32. The court therefore rejected the appellant's contention that the cause of action was the same as the original calls and that limitation began to run from the original call dates.
Justice Coyajee expressly concurred, repeating that on forfeiture the defendant ceased to be a member and could not be sued for past calls except insofar as Article 32 created a fresh liability enforceable from the time of forfeiture; hence the limitation period began on forfeiture and the suit was within time.
Holding and Implications
Final Ruling: APPEAL DISMISSED.
The court upheld the trial Judge's decree in favour of the plaintiffs and dismissed the appeal with costs. The direct effect is that the plaintiffs' suit to recover the sums claimed (comprising allotment money and the unpaid calls as quantified in the plaint) was held not to be barred by limitation because Article 32 of the articles of association created a new contractual cause of action arising on the date of forfeiture (3 August 1921), and the suit, filed on 31 July 1924, was within the applicable limitation period.
Broader implications: The opinion reasons that where the articles of association create express post-forfeiture liabilities, such provisions can constitute fresh contractual rights of action enforceable from the date of forfeiture. The opinion does not purport to lay down any rule beyond the interpretation and application to the facts of Article 32 in this company; no novel statutory amendment or new rule of general application beyond the case reasoning is asserted in the text.
Other Information from the Opinion
Solicitors for appellant: Payne & Co.
Solicitors for respondents: Mulla & Mulla.
Appeal dismissed.
Sir Norman Macleod, C.J:— The plaintiffs were a joint-stock company incorporated on February 27, 1920, under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913, and having their registered office at Thakurdwar without the Fort. The capital of the company was rupees twenty-five lacs divided into 25,000 ordinary shares of the value of Rs. 100 each. On March 31, 1920, the defendant applied for one hundred shares of the said company and duly paid the application money thereon, viz., Rs. 1,000. Pursuant to the resolution in that behalf the board of directors of the plaintiff company allotted to the defendant one hundred shares, and the relative allotment letter duly addressed was duly posted to the defendant. By a resolution passed on July 20, 1920, the board of directors of the plaintiff company made a first call of Rs. 15 per share upon the members of the said company payable on or before August 5, 1920. Dae notice of the said resolution was given to the defendant, and he was required to pay the amount of the said call on or before August 5, 1920, at the office of the company. The defendant was further informed that interest at nine per cent, per annum would be charged on the amount of the said call from August 5, 1920, until payment. A further call of Rs. 15 per share payable on or before February 20, 1921, was made by a resolution passed on January 27, 1921, and due notice was given to the defendant. The defendant did not pay the amount clue on the allotment or on the calls made by the plaintiff company. Accordingly the directors served a notice on the defendant, dated April 15, 1921, erbniring him to pay the same together with interest thereon in accordance with the provisions of the articles of association of the company, and stating therein that in the event of non-payment of the said allotment and call money with interest thereon at nine per cent, within twenty days from the date of the notice, that is, on or before May 5, 1921, the directors would forfeit the shares and proceed to recover the unpaid amount. The defendant failed to comply with the requisitions contained in the notice of April 15, 1921, whereupon by a resolution passed on August 3, 1921, by the board of directors the shares held by the defendant were duly forfeited in accordance with the provisions of the articles of association of the company. The plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant the sum of Rs. 5,959-5-0 with interest on Rs. 4,694-12-3 at the rate of nine per cent, per annum from July 29, 1924, till judgment.
The defendant admitted the statements in the plaint but submitted that the suit as against him was barred by the law of limitation in respect not only of the allotment moneys, but also in respect of the first and second calls, inasmuch as the same became due and payable more than three years before the filing of the suit.
At the hearing issues were raised whether the claim in respect of the allotment money, the first call and the second call respectively were barred by limitation. The learned Judge held that the plaintiffs' claim to recover all the three amounts was not barred by limitation and passed a decree as prayed.
In appeal it has been argued that that decision is wrong, that the suit was in fact a suit for payment of the allotment money and the calls made by the company on the shares, and that as it fell under Article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act it was barred. It was also argued, that, although under Article 32 of the Articles of Association the company was entitled to enforce payment of the allotment money and the calls in spite of the defendant's shares having been forfeited, the cause of action was the same, and the period of limitation for the suit was the same as on the original cause of action.
Article 32 runs as follows:—
“Any member whose shares have been forfeited shall, notwithstanding be liable to pay, and shall forthwith pay to the company, all calls, instalments, interest and expenses owing upon or in respect of such shares at the time of the forfeiture together with interest thereon, from the time of forfeiture until payment, at nine per cent, per annum, and the directors may enforce the payment thereof if they think fit”
It is admitted that, but for the provisions of that article, if the shares of any member are forfeited, he ceases to be a member of the company in respect of the forfeited shares, and so would no longer be liable to pay to the company all moneys which, at the date of forfeiture, were presently payable by him to the company in respect of the shares. It follows that if a member's shares are forfeited and he ceases to be a member of the company, it is only by virtue of Article 32 that he becomes a debtor to the company for the amount of calls, instalments, interest and expenses due at the time of forfeiture, and it can be said that on that account a new cause of action arises under that special contract between him and the company. The question has not arisen in any reported case as to when the period of limitation begins to run for a suit by a company against a late member for money in respect of calls, instalments and expenses which were due from him at the time his shares were forfeited. The learned Judge has relied upon the decision in Stocker's Case(1). In that case by the articles of association of the company overdue calls were to carry interest at twenty-five per cent, and, by clause 50, it was provided that the forfeiture of a share should involve the extinction at the time of the forfeiture of all interest in, and all claims and demands against, the company in respect of the share, and all other rights incident to the share but that the shareholder should, notwithstanding be liable, “to pay to the company all calls owing on such share at the time of such forfeiture”. An action was brought by the company to recover from Stocken the amount due on the shares belonging to him which had been forfeited under clause 50. The company having gone into liquidation after forfeiture Stocken successfully resisted being placed on the list of contributories, but then received a notice in writing, calling upon him to pay to the official liquidator the amount of the call which was due at the time of forfeiture, “and interest thereon, calculated according to the articles of association and the notice of call issued to the shareholders”. The question then was whether Stocken was bound to pay not only the amount due to the company but also “interest thereon”. The Master of Rolls decided that no interest was payable. In appeal Lord Cairns L.J said (p. 414):
“I think that the 50th clause of the articles of association, whether it be called a penal clause or not, must receive a strict construction, and that the rights of the parties on one side and the other must depend upon its construction… But whether that be so or not, the construction of that clause, as it seems to me, is reasonably clear. The first part runs thus:— ‘The forfeiture of any share shall involve the extinction at the time of the forfeiture of all interest in and all claims and demands against the company in respect of the shares and all other rights incident to the share.’ Now, suppose the clause had stopped there, and there had been nothing more in the articles. I apprehend that clearly no action could, after forfeiture, have been maintained for the recovery of the calls previously due, and that for two reasons. First, I think so in consequence of the words used, namely, that all rights incident to the share are extinguished, which words cannot, in my opinion, be confined to rights against the company, but must extend to all rights incident to the share. In addition to that, I am strongly disposed to think that the mere fact of a duly authorised forfeiture of shares without anything in the articles defining the effect of forfeiture, would of itself, in the very nature of things, render any proceedings at law for past calls incompetent, because such proceedings must, I apprehend, be on the footing that the person sued was a shareholder in the company; and if his interest in the company had been destroyed, it is by no means clear that the action could be maintained. The following part of the 50th clause shows that the construction which I have put upon the first part is the construction put on it by the framer of the articles; for he evidently thought that if he stopped there any right to proceed for calls would be gone, and he therefore introduces a provision which seems to me to be in substance and in words the creation of a new right.”
Accordingly it was held that no interest was payable, as no demand had been made for payment with interest after forfeiture on the sum payable under the forfeiture clause. It pimply gave an independent right to recover after forfeiture the sum due at the date of forfeiture. That was the sum which appeared to the Court, could be recovered and nothing beyond that.
A reference has also been made to the case of Ladies' Dress Association v. Pulbrook, in which the defendant was sued after the company went into liquidation for the unpaid calls due by him, and it was held that, “notwithstanding the provisions of section 38 of the Companies Act, 1882, sub-sections 1, 3, the action was maintainable, inasmuch as the defendant was liable, not as a contributory, but as a debtor to the company”.
By analogy a reference may also be made to section 61 of the Indian Companies Act (VI of 1882) which makes it clear that when a company has gone into liquidation “every present and past member of such company shall be liable to contribute to the assets of the company to an amount sufficient for payment of the debts and liabilities of the company and the costs, charges and expenses of the winding up”. And under sub-clause (d): “In the case of a company limited by shares, no contribution shall be required from any member exceeding the amount, if any, unpaid on the shares in respect of which he is liable as a present or past member”. So that when a company goes into liquidation, although as against the members the company's right to recover the money due on the calls may be barred, the members of the company are liable to contribute to the assets of the company to the extent of the amount unpaid on their shares in order that the debts and liabilities of the company should be paid. It seems to me, therefore, that by Article 32 of the Articles of Association, there was a special contract whereby the defendant agreed that in the event of his shares being forfeited he would be liable to pay to the company all the moneys that were due by him for allotment, calls and further calls made on the shares allotted to him with interest, and it was on that contract that the plaintiffs were suing. The cause of action then arose on August 3, 1921, when the company forfeited the shares, and, therefore, the suit to recover what was due from the defendant on his shares was within time. The appeal, therefore, fails and must be dismissed with costs.
Coyajee, J.:— I concur. The foundation of the suit is the special contract evidenced by Article 32 of the plaintiff company's articles. On forfeiture of his shares, the defendant ceased to be a member, and the company could not thereafter sue him for past calls. But although his liability to pay such calls came to an end, he incurred, under the terms of Article 32, a fresh liability to “forthwith pay to the company all calls, instalments, interest and expenses owing upon or in respect of such shares at the time of the forfeiture, together with interest thereon, from the time of forfeiture until payment”. This, in my opinion, was a new obligation giving the company a fresh cause of action against the defendant; and the period of limitation for a suit to enforce this new obligation began to run from the time the shares were forfeited. In this case, the plaintiff company exercised the power of forfeiture on August 3, 1921, and the suit having been instituted on July 31, 1924, is not barred by limitation.
Solicitors for appellant: Payne & Co.
Solicitors for respondents: Mulla & Mulla.
Appeal dismissed.
O.H.B
Alert