TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the application under section 38 of the Companies Act was barred by article 42 of the articles of association. (ii) Whether the application was maintainable where the transfer was made in the name of a partnership firm and not in the name of a person.
Issue (i): Whether the application under section 38 of the Companies Act was barred by article 42 of the articles of association.
Analysis: Article 42 empowered the directors to decline registration of a transfer without giving reasons, but it did not exclude the court's jurisdiction under section 38 to entertain an application for registration. The provision could become relevant only if the application was otherwise maintainable and the refusal to register required scrutiny on merits.
Conclusion: The application was not barred on this ground and the objection failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the application was maintainable where the transfer was made in the name of a partnership firm and not in the name of a person.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Companies Act contemplated registration of members as persons, and the register of members was to contain the names and addresses of members. A partnership firm was treated in law as a collective name for the partners and not as a distinct legal person. The general definition of "person" in the General Clauses Act could not be applied where it was repugnant to the subject and context of the Companies Act. The authorities relied on for partnership procedure and firm names did not alter that position for company share registration.
Conclusion: The application was not maintainable because a share transfer in favour of a firm name was not a transfer in favour of a person.
Final Conclusion: The court held that a company cannot register shares in the name of a partnership firm as such, and the applicant's request for substitution on the register therefore failed.
Ratio Decidendi: For registration of shares under the Companies Act, the transferee must be a person or other legal entity recognised by law, and a partnership firm, being only a collective name for its partners, is not such a person.
TaxTMI 
