Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 781 1982 SLD 781 1982 PLD 236
Lahore High Court
Civil Original No. 20 of 1959, heard on 11th November, 1981
GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Iftikhar Ali Sheikh for Appellant. Mv. Ihsanul Haque for
Respondent,

PAKISTAN

VS

THE BEHTRIN INDUSTRIES LTD.--Respondent

Law:

Section:

Companies Act (VII of 1913)­- - S. 229-Winding up of Company-Company found to be solvent by Official Liquidator-Debts of Company not carrying any interest under any contract-Held, creditors of such debts not entitled, out of surplus assets, to payment of interest accruing after commencement of liquidation till payment of principal debt. Dehra Dun Mussoories Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. (1934) 56 All. 423 ; Devi Ditta v. Official Liquidator A I R 1921 Lah. 346 ; In re : Humber Iron Works & Shipbuilding Co. Ltd. (1869) 4 Ch. 643 ; Official Receiver v. Rao & Co. A I R 1948 Mad. 64 ; Had-field's Patent Cask & Package Co. Ltd. (1963) 8 L T 846 ; Esmail Esoof Molla v Chartered Bank of India A I R 1931 Rang. 334 and In re : Herefordshire Banking Co. (1867) M R Eq. Cas. 250 discussed. JUDGMENT The respondent-Company has been ordered to be wound up. The Official Liquidator after going into state of assets and liabilities has reported that the Company is solvent. He, therefore, seeks guidance of this Court for the purpose of disposing of the surplus amount. The Company had its creditors but admittedly they had no express or implied contract with the Company for the payment of any interest. The short question requiring determination, therefore, is whether any interest is payable to the creditors, in the absence of a contract, in a case where the Company is solvent. 2. The Official Liquidator has referred to the case of Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd (1). In that case Young, J. held that when there was a surplus in the winding up of a company, the creditors are entitled to payment of interest from the date of winding up until payment and that such interest is payable not only to the creditors whose debts carried interest but also to those in whose cases there was no contract for interest. 3. In arriving at this decision, Young, J. stated that the point was covered by an authority and quoted Devi Ditta v. Official Liquidaror (2). That case is undoubtedly an authority for the proposition that the creditors whose debts carry interest are entitled to claim interest up to the date of payment, but it furnishes no authority for the further proposition that…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492