1977 (9) TMI 85 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the purported allotment of shares by the respondent-company.
2. Request for rectification of the register of members and refund of the amount paid.
3. Interpretation of Section 155 of the Companies Act for seeking relief.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns three Company Petitions filed under section 155 of the Companies Act challenging the purported allotment of shares by the respondent-company to the petitioners. The petitioners received letters of allotment for 1,100 equity shares each, based on their applications and payments made. Allegations were made that the allotment was made falsely and in contravention of the Companies Act. The petitioners sought a declaration that the allotment was illegal and void.

2. The petitioners requested the court to rectify the register of members by deleting their names and to direct the respondent-company to refund the amount paid with interest. The ex-managing director of the company opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioners should have pursued remedies under general law instead of seeking relief through the petition. The official liquidator's report confirmed the payments made by the petitioners but could not find evidence of the allotment return being filed with the Registrar.

3. The judgment analyzed the applicability of Section 155 of the Companies Act, which allows for rectification of the register of members. The court noted that for relief under this section, there must be an error or defect in the register that needs rectification. As the membership register was not found and no return of allotment was sent to the Registrar, the court concluded that relief under Section 155 could not be granted to the petitioners. The petitions were rejected, with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues of alleged illegal allotment of shares, the request for rectification of the register of members, and the interpretation of Section 155 of the Companies Act for seeking relief. The court found that without evidence of errors in the register or non-compliance with legal requirements, the relief sought by the petitioners could not be granted under Section 155.