9911796707
TMI Blog1948 (8) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; Rs. A. P. On account of application money ... 750 0 0 On account of allotment money ... 1,500 0 0 On account of 1st call ... 1,500 0 0 On account of 2nd call ... 1,000 0 0 4,750 0 0 On account of overdue interest up to date of forfeiture ... 2,067 8 0 Total ... 7,817 8 0 It was stated that the suit was within the period of limitation as the cause of action arose on 5th May, 1939, when the plaintiff company forfeited the shares under its articles of Association. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant was a shareholder to the extent of 50 preference shares in the plaintiff company. According to the plaintiff an application for preference shares was made by the defend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mittee of directors and that this committee was not properly constituted. It appears that the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant on 7th April, 1939. From this notice it would appear that a demand was made for certain calls which were due and which had remained unpaid on his shares. The first two demands totalling a sum of Rs. 2,250 were, it is alleged, time-barred as they had fallen due on 15th December, 1933, and 25th January, 1934, and no steps had been taken to recover them within the time fixed for limitation. The lumping together in one letter of demands which were time-barred and demands which were not time-barred would, as has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant, make the notice of forfeiture an illegal one. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of section 28 and the two authorities mentioned above is that the remedy was barred but that the right was not extinguished. The third point in regard to which argument was addressed to us was that the resolution for forfeiture was invalid as it was passed by a committee of directors and that this was contrary to article 179 of the articles of Association which are to be found printed at p. 98 of the paper book. rticle 179 authorises the directors to delegate any of their powers to a committee consisting of such member or members as they think proper. Any committee so formed shall, in the exercise Ok the powers so delegated, conform to any regulations that may be imposed on it by the director. Article 179 is not inconsistent with any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d agreed that in the event of his shares being forfeited he would be liable to pay to the company all the moneys that were due by him for allotment, calls and further calls made on the shares allotted to him with interest, and that it was on that contract that plaintiffs were suing. It was further laid down that the cause of action for that reason arose when the company forfeited the shares and due to that circumstance the suit to recover what was due from the defendant on his shares was within time. It was observed by Coyajee, J., that having regard to the terms of article 32 of the articles of Association of the company before them, i.e., the Bombay High Court Bench, there was a new obligation giving the company a fresh cause of action ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e plaintiff on 6th October, 1942, it would appear that the defendant-appellant was a subscriber to the Memorandum of Association. In the interrogatories which were served on the defendant, he was specifically asked whether he was one of the original subscribers to the Memorandum of Association and the articles of Association and whether he was one of those who got them registered. The answers to these interrogatories were not given by the defendant himself, but by his Mukhtaram. The answers were of an evasive nature. They were given on 16th March, 1943, and what the Mukhtaram stated was that the defendant did not intentionally sign any paper within his knowledge by virtue of which he could have become an original subscriber to the Memorandu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
