https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96758 The appeal was dismissed by the High Court, emphasizing that the defendant, a shareholder in a company registered in Baroda, did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Baroda Liquidation Court. The court ruled the call order against the defendant as unenforceable in British India due to lack of evidence proving notice for the call order and justification for the call of Rs. 20 per share. The judgment stressed the necessity for the Liquidator to establish all relevant facts to prove the defendant's liability, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal without costs. en-us Mon, 17 Jan 1938 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:01:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96758 The appeal was dismissed by the High Court, emphasizing that the defendant, a shareholder in a company registered in Baroda, did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Baroda Liquidation Court. The court ruled the call order against the defendant as unenforceable in British India due to lack of evidence proving notice for the call order and justification for the call of Rs. 20 per share. The judgment stressed the necessity for the Liquidator to establish all relevant facts to prove the defendant's liability, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal without costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 17 Jan 1938 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96758