https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96996 Allotment of shares was upheld where the applicant had paid the requisite five per cent of the share money with the application, satisfying the statutory condition. The inclusion of time-barred calls in a forfeiture notice did not invalidate the forfeiture because limitation barred the remedy for direct enforcement but did not extinguish the underlying debt; the forfeiture clause could create a fresh contractual liability recoverable after forfeiture. A committee of directors was competent to pass the forfeiture resolution where the articles permitted delegation, consistent with Table A. The contention that the forfeiture clause was penal in character failed, and the company's decree was sustained. en-us Tue, 31 Aug 1948 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:47:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96996 Allotment of shares was upheld where the applicant had paid the requisite five per cent of the share money with the application, satisfying the statutory condition. The inclusion of time-barred calls in a forfeiture notice did not invalidate the forfeiture because limitation barred the remedy for direct enforcement but did not extinguish the underlying debt; the forfeiture clause could create a fresh contractual liability recoverable after forfeiture. A committee of directors was competent to pass the forfeiture resolution where the articles permitted delegation, consistent with Table A. The contention that the forfeiture clause was penal in character failed, and the company's decree was sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 31 Aug 1948 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96996