<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1932 (2) TMI 23 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96591</link>
    <description>Unpaid share capital becomes enforceable only after a valid call is made and notified in accordance with the articles of association and governing company law. A directors&#039; resolution alone does not constitute a valid call; service of notice pursuant to that resolution is necessary. Where no notice of call was served, the purchaser of the company&#039;s rights could not recover the unpaid balance, and the claim failed for want of cause of action. The objection that the suits fell within the jurisdiction of a Small Causes Court was rejected because the statutory provisions governing contributories and appellate forums treated them differently from ordinary small-cause matters. The appeals therefore failed on the merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:06:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133649" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1932 (2) TMI 23 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96591</link>
      <description>Unpaid share capital becomes enforceable only after a valid call is made and notified in accordance with the articles of association and governing company law. A directors&#039; resolution alone does not constitute a valid call; service of notice pursuant to that resolution is necessary. Where no notice of call was served, the purchaser of the company&#039;s rights could not recover the unpaid balance, and the claim failed for want of cause of action. The objection that the suits fell within the jurisdiction of a Small Causes Court was rejected because the statutory provisions governing contributories and appellate forums treated them differently from ordinary small-cause matters. The appeals therefore failed on the merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96591</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>