9911796707
TMI Blog1947 (1) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or allocated to the shareholders, or to some of them, in specie, and by inadvertence that allocation was never carried out, with the result that the company disappeared and ceased to exist, leaving these properties to go where the law indicated in those circumstances they should go. It is now desired to restore the company's existence, or, as I have said, to revive it under section 294 of the Companies Act, 1929, which provides, omitting irrelevant words, as follows: " Where a company has been dissolved, the court may at any time within two years of the date of the dissolution, on an application being made for .the purpose by the liquidator of the company", or by other persons interested, "make an order, upon such terms as the court thinks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and perhaps the case itself is not a very good guide, but there is a passage in the speech of Lord Blanesburgh (96 L.J. Ch. at p. 261 ; [1927] A.C. at p. 268) which seems to me to be of some assistance on this occasion. Lord Blanesburgh, after quoting the appropriate words from the section, says: " It is true that a declaratory order under the section unqualified in terms does, and it was in my judgment essential, if many difficulties which readily occur to the mind were to be avoided, that such an order should, have the effect of restoring to the revived company its corporate existence as from the very moment of the dissolution thereby declared ' to have been void '. But the expository words which follow carefully, and, as I think, advise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time being, as the case may be ..." I am informed by counsel for the Attorney-General that in order to avoid any possible suggestion being made that the effect of an order under section 294 is not sufficient to re-vest for all purposes any property which came within the ambit of section 296, at any rate in one case a vesting order as to such property in favour of the restored, revived or resuscitated company was made. But I understood that the making of such a vesting order is by no means frequent, and although it may have been done in one case, ex abundanti cautela, I think it would not be right for me to make such an order as though it were the necessary or common thing to do. Therefore, I propose to indicate quite shortly what, in my vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess the view that any property which is supposed to have been vested in the Crown under section 296 either in fact never did so vest, or in so far as it must be assumed to have vested, the vesting is avoided by my order. I think the vesting is " subject and without prejudice to any order which may at any time be made by the court " that is what section 296 says and I express the view that by making "the order in the terms which I do, nothing remains in the Crown, if anything was ever vested in the Crown, or in the Royal Duchies, in the shape of interest in this freehold or leasehold property. The difference of expression between sections 294 and 295 (6) is curious, and though for some purposes, no doubt, difference in language may be signi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
