TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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 rules in favor of appellant, orders share reinstatement & dividends. Certificate granted for legal significance.</h1> <h3>Jagatjit Distilling & Allied Industries Ltd. Versus Shiv Ram Nanak Chand</h3> The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant was entitled to the protection under Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act ... Shares warrants and entries in register of members Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act.2. Ownership and transfer of shares on the critical date, August 15, 1947.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act:The appellant contended that Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (the Act) does not apply because the call for non-payment, which led to the forfeiture of shares, was made before August 15, 1947. The court analyzed Section 19, which provides protection to displaced persons from forfeiture of shares due to non-payment of call money if they held the shares on August 15, 1947. The court clarified that the date refers to the time when the displaced person must have been holding the shares, regardless of whether the call was made before or after August 15, 1947. The court emphasized that the protection is given due to the assumed inability of displaced persons to pay call money because of the peculiar circumstances they faced. Therefore, the court rejected the appellant's interpretation and held that the protection under Section 19 applies even if the call was made before August 15, 1947, provided the person held the shares on that date.2. Ownership and Transfer of Shares on August 15, 1947:The appellant argued that Mr. Batta had transferred his shares to Mr. K.R. Erry before August 15, 1947, and hence, he was not the holder of the shares on the critical date. The facts revealed that Mr. Batta had executed blank transfer forms and handed them over to Laxmi Commercial Bank, Lahore, which eventually reached Mr. Erry. Mr. Erry filled in his name as the transferee and sent the documents to the company for registration, but the company refused the transfer as the shares were already forfeited. The court noted that for the purposes of the company, the transferor continues to be the legal owner of the shares until the transfer is registered in the company's register of members. The court cited various provisions of the Indian Companies Act and the company's articles of association, which state that the company shall treat the registered holder as the absolute owner and not recognize any equitable or other claim. The court concluded that Mr. Batta remained the legal owner of the shares on August 15, 1947, as his name was still on the company's register. Consequently, he was entitled to the protection under Section 19 of the Act.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Mr. Batta was entitled to the benefits of Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act as he was the legal holder of the shares on August 15, 1947. The court directed the company to restore the shares to Mr. Batta and declared that he was entitled to all dividends accrued since August 15, 1947. The court also granted a certificate under Section 52 of Ordinance 10 of 2005 Bk due to the importance of the question involved.
TaxTMI 
