GANESHILAL GUPTA Vs. BHARATPUR OIL MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application of Ganeshilal, one of the ex -Directors Bharatpur Oil Mills (P) Ltd., for relief under Rule 177 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. An order for the winding up of the Company was made on October 4, 1960, and the petitioner claims the recovery of his remuneration as director for the period May 20, 1957 to January 4, 1960, at the rate of Rs. 400/ -per month, amounting to Rs. 12, 600/ -, on the strength of two resolutions of the Company dated May 20, 1957 and September 12, 1958. He has stated that after the winding -up order was made he asked the other directors to file a claim on his behalf also because he was not in a position to undertake the journey to Jodhpur on account of his old age and illness, and that be remained under the impression that they had done so. He came to know from one of the ex -directors that the claims of the other three directors were allowed by the Official Liquidator on September 25, 1971, and he therefore filed the present application on October 29, 1971. As a dividend had already been declared by then, the applicant has stated their he may be paid out of the surplus in the hand of the liquidator. An affidavit has been filed in support of the application.

(2.) THE Official Liquidator has opposed the application on three main grounds. He has contended that the last date for the submission of claims was January 30, 1961, that the applicant has not given any 'cognent reason' for the delay and that a dividend of 50 paise in the rupee has been declared and paid in the meantime. Then he has stated that the applicant is not entitled to claim remuneration because at the time when he was called upon to file the statement of affairs of the Company under Section 454 of the Companies Act, he denied his responsibility on the ground that he had resigned already. Lastly, it has been contended that the application is premature because the applicant has not filed a claim with the Official Liquidator in the first instance.

(3.) THE same view has been expressed in Palmer's Company Law, twenty -first edition, at Page 761. Reference may also be made to the decisions in Isack Jesudasen Pillai v. Divan Bahadur Ramsamy Chhetty ILR 1904 Mad. 496 which appears to have been based on the decision in In re General Rolling Stock Company 1871 (7) Ch. Appeal 646, and to T.R. Rajakumari v. Motion Picture Producers Combine Ltd. AIR 1942 Mad. 349. it is thus a well settled proposition of the law, a creditor may come in and prove his debt at any time before the final distribution of the assets, but he cannot disturb any dividend which has already been paid, The first objection of the Official Liquidator is therefore futile.