TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Recognizes Capt. Ker as Contributory in Winding Up Application</h1> <h3>Murray & Co., In re</h3> Murray & Co., In re - [1937] 7 COMP. CAS. 341 (OUDH) Issues:1. Determining the right of Capt. A.E. Ker as a contributory to make an application for winding up.2. Analyzing whether Capt. Ker fulfills the conditions laid down in proviso (a) (ii) of Section 166 of the Indian Companies Act.3. Assessing the justness and equitability of winding up the company based on objections raised.Issue 1:The judgment concerns an application for winding up a company by Capt. A.E. Ker, representing the estate of a deceased shareholder, V.M. Bason. The court deliberates on whether Capt. Ker, as an administrator, can be considered a contributory entitled to make such an application. The Articles of Association and the Indian Companies Act are pivotal in determining Capt. Ker's status as a contributory. The court concludes that Capt. Ker, as an administrator, represents the legal estate in the shares and is deemed a contributory, citing the decision in In re Norwich Yarn Co. to support this view.Issue 2:The judgment addresses whether Capt. Ker meets the conditions stipulated in proviso (a) (ii) of Section 166 of the Indian Companies Act. The court examines the Share Ledger note and the letters of administration granted to Capt. Ker concerning Mr. Bason's shares. It opines that the note in the Share Ledger satisfies the requirement of the share being registered in the applicant's name. Furthermore, the court deems that the shares held by Mr. Bason devolved on Capt. Ker through Mr. Bason's death, fulfilling the conditions for being a contributory.Issue 3:The judgment also delves into the objections raised regarding the justness and equitability of winding up the company. Objectors argue that voluntary liquidation is preferred, citing disagreements among contributories and allegations of dishonesty and mismanagement. However, the court notes discrepancies in the parties' stances and highlights past audit reports indicating financial irregularities. Relying on precedents and considering the need for a thorough investigation into the company's affairs, the court rules in favor of compulsory winding up over voluntary liquidation, disallowing objections and directing the winding-up application to proceed.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies Capt. Ker's status as a contributory, confirms compliance with statutory conditions, and justifies the decision for compulsory winding up based on the need for a comprehensive investigation into the company's operations.
TaxTMI 