Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants, whose names stood on the register of shareholders at the commencement of winding up, remained liable as contributories and were entitled to have their names removed and the share application money repaid on the footing that the underlying share arrangement was void or illegal.
Analysis: The liability of a shareholder on winding up depends on the statutory position existing at the commencement of the winding up. Once the appellants were entered on the register as holders of the shares with their knowledge and assent, section 156 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 operated on the winding up. Their liability in respect of those shares arose by force of the statute and not from the original contract. Any antecedent contractual controversy, including the alleged illegality of the arrangement, did not displace the statutory liability attaching to a registered shareholder at the commencement of winding up.
Conclusion: The appellants remained liable as contributories and were not entitled to removal from the register or repayment of the share application and allotment money on the ground urged.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because winding-up liability under the Companies Act attached to the appellants as registered shareholders, irrespective of the earlier contractual dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: On the commencement of winding up, liability of a person whose name stands on the register as holder of shares is statutory and arises ex lege under the Companies Act, so antecedent contractual objections do not avoid contributory liability.