https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97107 Section 38 of the Companies Act was treated as wide enough to support rectification where a shareholder's name was omitted from the register and no genuinely complicated title dispute arose, so the petitioner was not required to file a separate suit. The court also found the notice evidence unsatisfactory and held that the forfeiture and omission from the register were not shown to have been carried out fairly or regularly, making them invalid. It further accepted that a call could not be enforced against a person before registration as a member under the company's articles and section 30(2), so liability could not be fastened before entry in the register. en-us Tue, 04 Apr 1950 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:54:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97107 Section 38 of the Companies Act was treated as wide enough to support rectification where a shareholder's name was omitted from the register and no genuinely complicated title dispute arose, so the petitioner was not required to file a separate suit. The court also found the notice evidence unsatisfactory and held that the forfeiture and omission from the register were not shown to have been carried out fairly or regularly, making them invalid. It further accepted that a call could not be enforced against a person before registration as a member under the company's articles and section 30(2), so liability could not be fastened before entry in the register. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 04 Apr 1950 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97107