https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99452 The court found the forfeiture of the petitioner's shares to be invalid due to non-compliance with notice requirements, rendering the forfeiture void. Despite preliminary objections raised by the respondent regarding delay and maintainability of the petition, the court upheld the petition, directing the respondent to restore the petitioner's name to the register of members for the shares. The court dismissed allegations of mala fide intent and benami ownership, emphasizing proper compliance with notice requirements for share forfeiture. The respondent was ordered to enforce any outstanding calls on the restored shares, with costs not awarded to the petitioner due to delay in filing. en-us Fri, 28 May 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:26:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99452 The court found the forfeiture of the petitioner's shares to be invalid due to non-compliance with notice requirements, rendering the forfeiture void. Despite preliminary objections raised by the respondent regarding delay and maintainability of the petition, the court upheld the petition, directing the respondent to restore the petitioner's name to the register of members for the shares. The court dismissed allegations of mala fide intent and benami ownership, emphasizing proper compliance with notice requirements for share forfeiture. The respondent was ordered to enforce any outstanding calls on the restored shares, with costs not awarded to the petitioner due to delay in filing. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 28 May 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99452