SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Cal) 45

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
IN RE: CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Matter 283  Of  1956
Decided On : MARCH 01, 1957

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.SEN, H.N.SANYAL, R.Choudhary

The return of allotment mentioned in Section 75 of the Companies Act of 1956 does not cover the case of forfeiture where shares are re-issued after forfeiture and this is so in all cases of forfeiture be they for non-payment of calls or on other grounds.

Headnote:

COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - SECTION 75 - RETURN OF ALLOTMENTS - FORFEITURE OF SHARES - RE-ISSUE OF FORFEITED SHARES - WHETHER RETURN OF ALLOTMENTS REQUIRED - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 75 (5).

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, a registered partnership firm, filed an application under Section 614 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking an order upon the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited to file a return of allotment in the prescribed form giving all necessary particulars with the Registrar, Companies in respect of 70 forfeited shares re-issued and allotted by the Stock Exchange.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Section 75 (5) of the Companies Act, 1956, which provides that nothing in Section 75 shall apply to the issue and allotment by a company of shares which under the provisions of its articles were forfeited for non-payment of calls, should be interpreted to mean that the return of allotment mentioned in Section 75 of the Companies Act of 1956 does not cover the case of forfeiture where shares are re-issued after forfeiture and this is so in all cases of forfeiture be they for non-payment of calls or on other grounds.

Issues: Whether the return of allotments mentioned in Section 75 of the Companies Act of 1956 covers the case of forfeiture where shares are re-issued after forfeiture.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the words "makes any allotment of its shares" in Section 75 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956, to mean only the original or the first allotment or even subsequent allotments provided they are allotments of new shares and not re-issue of shares in lieu of pre-existing shares which for some reason or other had been forfeited.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the application with costs, holding that the return of allotments of shares contemplated in Section 75 (1) of the Companies Act does not call for Return of the re-issue of shares in place of forfeited shares even though such forfeiture was not made for non-payment of calls.

P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by a registered partnership firm called Srigopal Jalan and Co. for an order upon the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited to file a return of allotment in the prescribed form giving all necessary particulars with the Registrar, Companies in respect of 70 forfeited shares re-issued and allotted by the Stock Exchange. The summons was taken out on the 29th June 1956 when the new Companies Act, 1956, had come into operation.

( 2 ) THE application is based on Section 75 of the Companies Act, 1956 and is made under Section 614 of that Act. It raises an important question of principle which involves construction and interpretation of Section 75 of the Companies Act. Before proceeding to discuss law I shall briefly state the facts which are short and simple:

( 3 ) THE applicant claims to be a member and shareholder of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited; Its case is that the company has from time to time forfeited 70 shares of Rs. 1,000/- each extinguishing the liability in respect of share capital paid up therein and that out of the said forfeited shares 65 had been originally issued for consideration other than cash and 5 for cash consideration. It also asserts that the said forfeited shares were reissued by the company as fully paid up shares for cash consideration of Rs. 1,000 each. It refers to the last balance-sheet of the 30th September 1955 in support of its contentions.

( 4 ) THE main point of the applicant's case is that the said 70 shares forfeited by the company were not forfeited for non-payment of calls and therefore both under Section 104 of the old Indian Companies Act, 1913 as well as under Section 75 of the Companies Act, 1956 it is obligatory upon the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited to file a return of allotment of the said shares with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. That is the only point for decision in this application and is the only point argued on behalf of the applicant.

( 5 ) SECTION 75 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides: (1) Whenever a company having a share capital makes any allotment of its shares, the company shall, within one month thereafter; (a) file with the Registrar a return of the allotments stating the number and nominal amount of the shares comprised in the allotment, the names, addresses and occupation of the allottees, and the amount, if any, paid or due and payable on each share; (b) in the case of shares (not being bonus shares) allotted as fully or partly paid up otherwise than in cash, produce for the inspection and examination of the Registrar a contract in writing constituting the title of the allottee to the allotment together with any contract of sale or a contract for services or other consideration in respect of which that allotment was made, such contracts being duly stamped, and filed with the Registrar copies verified in the prescribed manner of all such contracts and a return stating the number and nominal amount of shares so allotted; and (c) in the case of bonus shares, file with the Registrar a return stating the number and nominal amount of the bonus shares so allotted. "

( 6 ) THEN the section proceeds to make other provisions including the provision for default in the filing of such return and making such default punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- for every day during which the default continues, provided that in case of default the company or any officer who is in default may apply to the Court for relief and the Court, if satisfied that the omission to file the document was accidental or due to inadvertence or that on other grounds it is just and equitable to grant relief, may make an order extending the time for the filing of the document for such period as the Court may think proper.

( 7 ) ULTIMATELY Sub-section (5) of Section 75 of the Companies Act, 1956, makes the following provision on which the present applicant relies: " (5) Nothing in this section shall ap

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top