https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98309 Section 155 rectification of the register was held not barred by article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, because that residuary article was confined to applications under the Civil Procedure Code and did not extend to this company law proceeding. The dispute was also suitable for summary determination since the material facts were substantially admitted and the controversy turned on the legality of forfeiture and rectification. The company had no authority to forfeit fully paid shares issued under a monopoly covenant, as the forfeiture articles applied only to unpaid calls and no express power of forfeiture existed in the contract or statute. Rectification in favour of the successor State was upheld. en-us Fri, 23 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:19:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98309 Section 155 rectification of the register was held not barred by article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, because that residuary article was confined to applications under the Civil Procedure Code and did not extend to this company law proceeding. The dispute was also suitable for summary determination since the material facts were substantially admitted and the controversy turned on the legality of forfeiture and rectification. The company had no authority to forfeit fully paid shares issued under a monopoly covenant, as the forfeiture articles applied only to unpaid calls and no express power of forfeiture existed in the contract or statute. Rectification in favour of the successor State was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 23 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98309