Minor's incapacity to contract prevents treating a guardian-signatory as subscriber, so contributory listing set aside.

Where shares were issued and registered in a minor's name but the application was signed by the father as guardian, the guardian cannot be treated as a subscriber or placed on the list of contributories absent evidence he intended to subscribe or that his funds were used; the transaction is void as a minor cannot contract. The legal distinction between cases of an alias/intended principal and cases where no intention to subscribe ever existed is decisive, and absent such intention the guardian-signatory is not liable as a contributory; the contributory listing was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the father of a minor who signed an application for shares on behalf of his minor daughter can be placed on the list of contributories under Section 184 of the Indian Companies Act when the shares were issued and registered in the minor's name.

Analysis: The facts show the company issued and registered shares in the name of the minor who was described as a minor; the application was made by the father as guardian and there is no evidence that the father intended to be a subscriber or that his funds were used. The transaction was void under the law because a minor cannot contract. Authorities distinguishing cases where a registered name was merely an alias for another person were considered; those authorities do not apply where the company contracted with a minor aware of the minority. The relevant legal distinction is between cases involving an alias or intended principal and cases where there was never any intention by the person placed on the register to become a subscriber or by the company to treat him as subscriber.

Conclusion: The appeal is allowed and the order placing the father on the list of contributories is set aside; decision is in favour of the Appellant.

---