9911796707
TMI Blog1939 (3) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m to pay the amounts due on their shares. The Company, I am informed, has subsequently gone into liquidation. These defendants failed to pay the money demanded and have resisted the present suits against them on two grounds: (1) that there was no valid offer and acceptance of shares, and (2) that there was revocation of the proposal under section 6(2), Contract Act. Section 101, Companies Act, 1913, sub-clause 3 provides that the amount payable on application on each share shall not be less than 5 per cent. of the nominal amount of the share. It is admitted that these applications were subsequent to the first allotment of shares and also that they were not accompanied by any payment. The question is whether the applications were legal so as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany should not be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong-doing and neglect of the provisions of the Act by demanding the share money subsequently. In support, of the second ground about revocation by the lapse of a reasonable time without communication of acceptance of the offer, reference is made to an English case, Ramsgale Hotel Co. v. Montefiore. In that case application for 50 shares accompanied by a deposit of one pound per share was made on 8th June 1864. On 8th November the defendant having received no communication from the Company withdrew his application, and on 23rd November the Company intimated that 50 shares had been allotted and demanded payment of the balance of the first call. It was held that the allotment had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does apply and the proposal should be held to have been revoked, and in the case of all four, the application was invalid and no money can be recovered as there was no valid contract. The reasons given by the lower Court for holding that the delay was reasonable because the defendants are gentlemen of good status and the Company believed they would pay up these reasons appear to me to be beside the point. It is also immaterial that the present plaintiff is a transferee for valuable consideration. He is a business man, who no doubt undertook the risk of failing to recover all the amount said to be due to the Company. The applications are allowed with costs and these suits will be dismissed. I fix counsel's fee at Rupees 20 in each case. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
