Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + DSC Companies Law - 1968 (7) TMI DSC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1968 (7) TMI 36 - DSC - Companies Law

Issues:
1. Rectification of register under the Companies Act, 1948.
2. Delay in refusing registration of transfer.
3. Rights of shareholders in a private company.
4. Validity of directors' refusal to register transfer.

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with an appeal regarding the rectification of the register under the Companies Act, 1948. The case involves a small private company operating as dry cleaners in Yorkshire, with a capital of lb10,000 divided among family members. Following the death of significant shareholders, the company faced a situation where administrators not on the register held a substantial number of shares. The absence of a competent board of directors further complicated the company's governance.

2. The issue of delay in refusing registration of transfers was crucial in this case. The court emphasized the importance of directors informing aggrieved parties within two months of refusal, as stipulated by the Act of 1948. The unreasonable delay of four months in this instance was deemed unacceptable, leading to the conclusion that the right to refuse registration had been forfeited due to prolonged inaction.

3. The judgment underscores the fundamental rights of shareholders in a private company to transfer their shares unless expressly prohibited by the articles of association. It was established that shareholders possess a transferable right of property in their shares, which can only be restricted by specific provisions in the company's articles.

4. The validity of the directors' refusal to register transfers was a central point of contention. The court held that the directors' right to refuse registration must be exercised promptly within a reasonable timeframe, typically within the two-month period prescribed by the Act of 1948. Failure to make a timely decision rendered the subsequent refusal ineffective, reinforcing the shareholders' absolute right to transfer shares.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing the importance of timely action by directors in matters of registering transfers and safeguarding shareholders' rights within the framework of company law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates