9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Dispute over the settlement of the list of contributories and making calls on certain individuals who claim they were not shareholders at the time of the company's liquidation. - Allegation of incorrect share register and the need for rectification. - Interpretation of the principle that a transferor cannot avoid liability in winding up as a contributory if their name remains on the register despite the transfer, unless due to the company's default. Analysis: The judgment addresses a dispute where certain individuals from the Sonepur Raj family objected to being included as contributories in the winding up of a banking company, claiming they were not shareholders at the time of liquidation. The individuals sought rectification of the share register to remove their names. The court examined the facts, noting that the shares in question were sold by the Maharaja of Sonepur and his family in 1945, with evidence of the transfer provided. The court highlighted a letter from the bank to the transferor, indicating the intent to register the transfer unless objections were raised within a specified period. However, the transfer was not reflected in the company's registers despite no objections being made. The court considered the principle that a transferor cannot escape liability if their name remains on the register post-transfer, unless the company is solely at fault for non-rectification. In this case, the court found no fault on the part of the transferor, as the transfer was legitimate and the bank failed to update its records despite being notified of the transfer. The court emphasized that the transfer was made before the liquidation, through authorized brokers, establishing its legitimacy. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the disputants, setting aside the order of settlement of contributories and the call-making order specifically for them, absolving them of liability as contributories due to the company's default in rectifying the share register. The judgment concluded by stating that each party would bear their own costs, with the liquidator retaining costs from the assets in hand. The court's decision was based on the lack of default on the part of the transferors and the company's failure to rectify the share register, ultimately relieving the disputants from contributory liability.
|
