Judgement JUDGMENT :- This appeal arises out of a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1816-7-0, being principal and interest due on a promissory note, Ex. A. 1, executed by the defendant-appellant in favour of the plaintiff on 01-11-1949. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were subscribers to a chit fund carried on under the name of Commercial Fund, Kancheepuram. The defendant subscribed to a chit for Rs. 5,000. He was a successful bidder in one month, and for the due payment of the balance of subscriptions he executed an agreement, Ex. A. 2, dated 28-02-1948, in favour of the Fund. The Fund owed the plaintiff certain moneys and the plaintiff had that account written off by getting a transfer of the liability of the defendant to the Fund, which transfer is found entered in the account books of the Fund, Exs. B. 4 and B. 5. After getting such a transfer, the plaintiff got the suit promissory note executed in his favour for the amount due and owing by the defendant to the Fund and to the plaintiff by reason of the assignment recorded in the companys books of account. The company went into liquidation on a petition dated 06-10-1949 and the order of liquidation was passed in O. P. No. 309 of 1949 on 25-7-1950, Ex. B. 2. The defendant denied liability and contended that the transaction of the transfer of the liability of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant was void and that in the circumstances, the suit promissory note was not supported by any valid consideration. The Courts below took the view that the transaction amounted to the Fund transferring a debt due to the Fund in favour of a particular creditor and as a fresh promissory note had been executed accepting the liability by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, the transaction could not be considered to be void. The position is well settled that any transactions entered into by the company in respect of the assets of the company except those entered into bona fide and in the ordinary course of the management of the company after the date of the filing of the petition are void under S. 227(2), Indian Companies Act. A contrary view is urged to have been taken n - Tulsidas Jasraj v. The Industrial Bank of Western India, 54 Bom 718 (A). A contrary view is urged to have been taken n - Tulsidas Jasraj v. The Industrial Bank of Western India, 54 Bom 718 (A). But I considered the effect of that decision in another second appeal, - Syed Haidar v. Jayaram Pillai, S. A. No. 2443 of 1952 (B), and found that the decision did not lay any general proposition and that excepting transactions carried out bona fide or arising in the ordinary course of current business, all other transactions relating to the assets of the company entered into by the company after the winding-up proceedings are started would be void. That view would also apply to the facts of the present case, with the result that the promissory note becomes unenforceable and the suit has to be dismissed. The appeal is allowed and the suit will stand dismissed; but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs, each party bearing their respective costs throughout. Leave to appeal refused. Appeal allowed.