9911796707
TMI Blog1939 (11) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or before the first March and that if this was not done the question of enforcing Articles Nos. 27 and 29 would be placed before the directors for their consideration and that the contributory should make immediate arrangements for payment to avoid forfeiture of the shares. In regard to contributory No. 756, there is no such allegation of an earlier proceeding or notice. In, regard to both of them, they each received a notice from the company dated 23-11-1938 to the effect that in pursuance of the resolution of the board, notice was given that if there was failure to pay by 23-12-1938, the call in respect of allotment money at the registered office of the company, the shares allotted to the shareholders would be forfeited without further n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided the secretary should send to him a notice specifying the amount due, requiring payment within a stated time on pain of forfeiture, and if the amount was not paid the directors could declare the share or shares to be forfeited. A notice was sent to the shareholder conveying the information that at a resolution of the board of directors it was declared that unless the amount due was paid then these shares would irremediably be forfeited. For three years following, the company and the shareholder treated the shares as having been forfeited. Lord Justice Turner at page 173 in holding that there was in fact a forfeiture and that the difference between the procedure adopted and which should have been followed was one of form and not of subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held that there was in fact no forfeiture and the name of the shareholder was included in the list of contributories. All the above decisions were considered by a Division Bench in Parayan Prasad v. The Gaya Bank and Trades Association, Ltd. [1931] (10 Pat. 249). In that case, the notice waste the same effect as was given to the two contributories now before me with which there was non-compliance, and the notices of the company were to the same effect as those of this company, The learned judges of the Patna High Court considered all authorities including those I mentioned and held that in the case before them there was no forfeiture effected. In my view, the company has continued to treat these two persons, as shareholders inasmuch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
