9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Legality and validity of the forfeiture of the plaintiff's shares by the defendant company. 2. Whether there has been any waiver of the illegality and invalidity of the forfeiture by the plaintiff's conduct. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Legality and Validity of the Forfeiture of the Plaintiff's Shares: The court examined whether the forfeiture of the plaintiff's shares by the defendant company was carried out in compliance with the company's Articles of Association. The plaintiff, a shareholder in the defendant company, had defaulted on the third and fourth instalments of Rs. 1,250 each, despite having paid the first and second instalments. The defendant company issued several notices demanding payment, which the plaintiff did not comply with, leading to the forfeiture of his shares. The lower court found multiple defects in the resolutions and notices issued by the company: - The circular letters (Ex D-2 series) and the resolution (Ex. D-4) for the first call did not specify the amount, the person to whom, or the place where the payment was to be made, violating Art. 40 of the Articles of Association. - The resolution (Ex. D-5) for the second call also failed to specify these particulars. - The notices for the calls were not proved to have been served on the plaintiff. - Further notices (Ex. D-8 series) did not contain required particulars under Art. 42. - Resolutions (Exs. D-9 and D-11 (a)) were not considered valid resolutions for calls under Art. 40. - Notices (Exs. D-10 and D-12) were defective as per Art. 42. The lower court thus held the forfeiture invalid. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the lower court's findings were unreasonable. The High Court presumed that the notices were duly posted and received by the plaintiff, who had shown conduct indicating receipt of prior notices. The court also held that the resolutions and notices were valid, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in Dhunraj Keshrimal v. H.H. Wadia, which supported the presumption that the managing agents acted with the Board's sanction. The High Court found no irregularity or illegality in the forfeiture process. 2. Waiver of Illegality and Invalidity by Plaintiff's Conduct: The High Court did not find it necessary to address the issue of waiver, as it concluded that the forfeiture was legally justified. The court assumed that even if there was no waiver, the defendant company had sufficient grounds for the forfeiture. The plaintiff's conduct, including his response to the final notice and partial payment, further supported the conclusion that he had received the prior notices and was aware of the calls for payment. Conclusion: The High Court overturned the lower court's judgment, finding that the defendant company had acted within its rights and in accordance with the Articles of Association in forfeiting the plaintiff's shares. The appeal was accepted, and the suit was dismissed with costs awarded to the appellant.
|
