DARJEELING BANK LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some of the contributories in this case belonging to the Sonepur Raj family are objecting to this call being made upon them. Necessary applications have been made by them for setting aside the order settling the list of contributories on the 7th September, 1955 and the order of the 5th June, 1956 granting leave to the liquidator to make calls and for rectification of the share register by deleting their names from the register. Their main contention is that they were not shareholders at the time this Banking Company was wound up and the share register showing them as share-holders is incorrect and should be rectified.

(2.) The facts are not disputed. These shares were sold by the Maharaja of Sonepur and his family as early as 20th November, 1945. The copies of the sold notes are annexed with the records. The fact of sale cannot really be disputed. In fact, on the 20th December, 1945, the bank itself wrote stating that it had received the relative receipts for allotment money for registration of these shares in the name of Kumar Pinaki Bhusan Deo Rai of Naldanga. This shows that the transferee had lodged these relative receipts with the bank and that is why the bank wrote on the 20th December, 1945. The terms of the letter which the managing director of the bank himself wrote on the 20th December, 1945 to the Maharaja of Sonepur and the members of his family are significant :

(3.) Thereafter, the list of contributories was settled on the 7th September, 1955, but receipt of notice of the final list of contributories is denied by the disputants. The order of the 5th June, 1956 granting leave to the liquidator to make calls on the basis of this register is also contended to be without notice to these disputants. In fact, the liquidator says that these notices were sent under Certificate of Posting and not under registered covers with acknowledgment due. I accept the submission of the disputants that they did not receive notice of the final settlement of the list of contributories nor of the order granting leave to make calls, because there is no obvious reason why they should not object, when in fact they had objected before. On the 30th June, 1956 a notice is again supposed to have been sent by the official liquidator demanding payment of the call money. This, again was not received by the disputants. On the 7th September, 1956 the liquidator sent a reminder. It was to this reminder that the disputants replied again stating the facts and making an express reference to the previous letter of the 10th August, 1953.