9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Determination of liability of a director as a contributory in a company in liquidation based on signed agreements for shares.
Analysis: The judgment by FALSHAW, J. of the High Court of Punjab deals with the dispute regarding the inclusion of a director's name as a contributory in a company in liquidation. The case revolves around Sampuran Singh objecting to being listed as a contributory for 50 shares in the Universal Transport Company Limited. The company's records show that Singh, along with others, signed an undertaking to take 50 shares, a requirement for directorship, at the company's formation. The articles of association listed Singh as the first director, solidifying his position within the company. Sampuran Singh argued that he should not be held liable as a contributory for the 50 shares as the figure was not written when he signed the documents, and he never intended to take the shares. However, evidence presented by other signatories and the managing director indicated that the figure 50 was indeed present when Singh signed, aligning with the standard procedure for all signatories. Despite the absence of shares being allotted to Singh and his name not appearing on the list of shareholders, the court found that Singh had agreed to take 50 shares, fulfilling the directorial qualification. The judgment referenced English cases such as Hall's Case, Sidney's Case, and Forbes' Case, emphasizing the principle that signing the memorandum of association and agreeing to take shares binds an individual as a contributory, irrespective of actual share allotment. The court dismissed Singh's objections, ruling that his name should be included in the list of contributories for the 50 shares, emphasizing the legal obligation arising from the signed agreements despite the absence of share allotment. Moreover, the judgment contrasted an Indian case, Synemodelux Ltd. v. K. Vannamuthu Pillai, highlighting the requirement of express share allotment to trigger liability for share payment. However, the court found this view questionable as it contradicted established English precedents that affirmed liability upon signing the memorandum, regardless of share allotment. This discrepancy reinforced the decision to uphold Singh's liability as a contributory for the 50 shares, aligning with the legal principles derived from the English cases cited in the judgment.
|
