9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (8) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that on 5th May, 1947, they posted letters of acceptance allotting the shares to the defendants, that there was a statutory meeting on 28th September, 1947, after the posting of these letters of allotment, and share certificates were sentto the defendants on 20th October, 1947, and the defendants received the share certificates, and when the company made demands on 31st August, 1948, for the share amounts, the defendants by their replies, Exs. A. 20 and A. 27, dated 14th September, 1948, and 13th September, 1948, repudiated and denied liability for the amount of the shares allotted to them. These revision petitions came up before Raghava Rao J. In order to find out whether there has been a 'concluded contract, that is whether the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gards this part of the case reliance is placed on the decision in Rams- gate Victoria Hotel v. Montefwre L.R. 1 Exch. 109. In that case the defendant in one of the actions for non-acceptance of shares applied for shares on June 8, 1864, but no allotment was made till November 23, and he withdrew his application on 8th November, the defendant in the other action did not withdraw his application, and it was held in both the cases that since the allotment must be made within a reasonable time and since it was not so made, neither defendant was bound to accept the shares so allotted. The delay there was much less than the delay in the present cases, where the delay is found to be more than seven months. In Indian Co-operative Navigation and Tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of demand on behalf of the company was made for the amount of the shares that the defendants came out with a case of nonliability under the shares in their replies, Exhibits A. 20 and A. 27, dated 14th September, 1948, and 13th September, 1948. It is not a case therefore where it could be considered that the time taken by the company in making the allotment and communicating the acceptance of the offer was unreasonable, since the defendants themselves could not have so considered it as any delay at all. Not only were they aware of the allotment but they accepted the shares. It was not a case of non-acceptance as in the case in Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co. v. Montefiore L.R. 1 Exch. 109 nor a case of even repudiation at the earliest possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
