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 invalidates share forfeiture, enforces payment obligations.</h1> <h3>Kanduri Lakshmiah Chetty Versus Adoni Electric Supply Co. Ltd.</h3> The Court found the forfeiture of shares invalid due to non-compliance with notice requirements, ruling in favor of the appellant. Despite this, the ... Shares – Power, to issue of at discount Issues:1. Validity of forfeiture of shares.2. Liability of appellant to pay for shares.3. Consideration of equity in determining liability for shares.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of forfeiture of sharesIn the case of Appeal No. 137 of 1942, the appellant contested the validity of the forfeiture of his shares by the company. The appellant argued that the notice of forfeiture did not comply with the requirements of the articles of association, specifically Article 62, as it did not specify the correct dates for payment and the place for making the payment. Citing the precedent set in Johnson v. Lyttles Iron Agency [1877] 5 Ch D 687, the Court held that any inaccuracies in the notice of forfeiture render the forfeiture invalid. The Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with all conditions precedent for a valid forfeiture. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant, declaring the forfeiture of shares as invalid.Issue 2: Liability of appellant to pay for sharesDespite the invalidity of the forfeiture, the Court acknowledged the appellant's liability to the company for the principal sum due on the shares. The Court determined the amounts owed by the appellant, including interest on different payment deadlines. The Court modified the trial Court's decree by declaring the forfeiture as invalid and allowing the appellant to retain ownership of the shares upon payment of the principal sum and interest within a specified timeframe. Failure to make the payment within the stipulated period would result in the dismissal of the appeal with costs.Issue 3: Consideration of equity in determining liability for sharesIn Appeal No. 216 of 1942, the respondent argued that he was not liable to pay for the shares as he had an arrangement with the promoter to receive the shares in exchange for legal services. The District Judge, while sympathetic to the respondent's argument, emphasized the need to decide the case based on legal considerations rather than equity. The Court held that the respondent, by subscribing to the memorandum of association, was obligated to pay for the shares in cash. The Court set aside the District Judge's decree and ordered the respondent to pay the principal sum and interest within a specified timeframe, failing which the company would obtain a decree for the amount with costs.In conclusion, the judgments in the appeals addressed the validity of forfeiture of shares, the liability of appellants to pay for shares, and the importance of adhering to legal obligations in company matters. The Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with legal requirements in enforcing forfeiture and upheld the principle of honoring financial obligations in shareholding agreements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
