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

1965 Supreme(SC) 202

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, J.R. MUDHOLKAR, AND R.S. BACHAWAT JJ.
Public Passenger Service Ltd., Chidambaram, Appellant
Versus
M. A. Khadar and another, etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 202 and 203 of 1965.
Advocates appeared
M/s. K. K. Venugopal and R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, M/s. P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 1.

Advocates:
A.V.Velayudhan Nair, A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, K.K.VENUGOPAL, P.RAM REDDY, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN

Headnote:NOTICE OF FORFEITURE OF SHARE DEFECTIVE – FORFEITURE INVALID – REGISTER CAN BE CORRECTED UNDER THIS SECTION – NO SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED - DEFECT IN NOTICE OF FORFEITURE OF SHARE—FORFEITURE INVALID—REGISTER CAN BE CORRECTED UNDER THIS SECTION—NO SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED - NOTICE OF FORFEITURE OF SHARE—DEFECTIVE—FORFEITURE INVALID—REGISTER CAN BE CORRECTED UNDER THIS SECTION—NO SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED

       -the notice of forfeiture of share was defective in respect of demand for expenses. The amount of expenses incurred by the Company by reason of the non-payment was not disclosed.

       - the notice of forfeiture of share was defective in respect of demand for expenses. The amount of expenses incurred by the Company by reason of the non-payment was not disclosed. It was held in Public Passenger Service Ltd. v. M.A. Khader, AIR 1966 SC 489 = (1966) I SCJ 68 = (1966) I SCWR 103 = (1966) I SCA 308 = 1966 SCD 952 = (1966) I SCR 683 = 36 Com. Cas. 1, that the slight defect in the notice invalidates it and is fatal to the forfeiture. Section 155 (i) (a) (ii) allows rectification of the share register if the name of any person after having been entered in the register is, without sufficient cause omitted therefrom. There is no sufficient cause for the omission of the name of the shareholder from the register, where the omission is due to an invalid forfeiture of shares and on finding that the forfeiture is invalid, the Court has ample jurisdiction under this Section to order rectification of the register. The issue under Section 155 (1) (a) (ii) is not whether the shareholder has sufficient causes but whether his name has been omitted from the register without sufficient cause. As the forfeiture is invalid, the names of the respondents were omitted from the share register without sufficient cause, and the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 155 is attracted.

       Also held that where by reason of its complexity or otherwise the matter can more conveniently decided in a suit, the Court may refuse relief under Section 155 and relegate the parties to a suit. But the question of invalidity of notice could well be decided summarily and the Court could not arbitrarily refuse relief to the respondents.

       Further held that unwarranted proceeding under Sections 402 and 237 of the Act and other vexatious proceedings started by the respondents have no relation to the invalidity of the forfeiture and the relief of rectification and are not valid grounds for refusing relief.

       

Judgment

BACHAWAT, J.: The appellant is a limited Company carrying on transport business in South. Arcot District. M. A. Khadar, the contesting respondent in Civil Appeal No. 202 of 1965, holds 13 shares and his brother M. A. Jabbar, the contesting respondent in Civil Appeal No. 203 of 1965, holds 163 shares in the Company. Articles 29 and 30 of the Articles of Association of the Company read:

"29. The notice shall name a future day, not being less than seven days from the service of the notice, on or before which such all or other money and all interest and expenses that may have accrued by reason of such non-payment are to be paid and the place where payment is to be made, the place so named being either registered office of the Company are usually made payable and shall state that in the event of non-payment at or before the time and at the place appointed the share in respect of which such payment is due, will be liable to be forfeited.

30. If the requisitions of any such notice as aforesaid be not complied with, any share in "respect of which such notice has been given may, at any time thereafter before payment of all money due thereon with interest and expenses, be forfeited by a resolution of the Directors to that effect."

2. On January 2, 1957, the Board of Directors of the Company passed a resolution calling the unpaid amount of Rs. 25 on each share. On January 3, 1957, a call notice was issued to the shareholders requesting payment on or before January 19, 1957. The call notice was duly served on the contesting respondents. As the call monies remained unpaid, the Company issued the following notice, dated January 20, 1957 to the respondents under Art. 29:

Sir,

As the call amount of the balance of Rs. 25 for every share held by you remains unpaid in respect of the notice, dated 3rd January 1957 issued in pursuance of the resolution of the Board. I hereby issue this notice calling upon you to pay the called amount at the registered office of the Company on or before Wednesday the 30th January 1957, together with interest at six per cent and any expenses that might have accrued by reason of such non-payment.

Take further notice that in the event of non-payment as mentioned above, the shares registered in your name will be liable to be, once for all, forfeited without further notice and without prejudice to any legal action that may be taken against you for recovering the balance amount due from you treating the same as a debt due to and recoverable as such by the Company under Art. 14.

By order of the Board

(Signed) A. R. Hassain Khan,

Managing Director."

In spite of this notice, the respondents did not pay the call monies, and on February 11, 1957, the board of directors passed a resolution under Art. 30 forfeiting the shares held by them. On November 8, 1957, the respondents filed two separate applications under S. 155 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 in the High Court of Madras praying that the forfeiture be set aside and the necessary rectifications be made in the share register of the Company. Ramachandra Ayyar, J. allowed the applications, and passed conditional orders for rectification of the register, and his decision was affirmed by the appellate Court. The Courts below held that in the absence of particulars of interest and expenses, the notice, dated January 20, 1957 was defective and the forfeiture is invalid. The Company now appeals to this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court.

3. In all standard articles of a company, the regulations relating to calls provide for payment of interest on the unpaid call money at a certain rate from the date appointed for its payment up to the time of actual payment, see regulation 14 of Table A in the first Schedule to the Indian Companies Act, 1913, regulation 16 of Table A in the first Schedule to the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and Palmer s Company Precedents, 17th Edn. Part I, p. 437 and the regulations relating to calls are followed by regulations relating to forfeiture










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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