1930 (2) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appeal is brought is that a certain gentleman-a shareholder named M. K. Khanna -was desirous of being heard at the time the winding up order was made, and the learned Judge refuse to hear him on the ground that, although he was a shareholder and a large shareholder, he was a fully paid up shareholder and therefore not a contributory. There can be no doubt really, whether or not the wording of the Companies Act uses the word "contributory" in all cases with exactness, that a fully paid up shareholder has the right to appear and to be heard upon the application to wind up the company. That has been the settled practice for a great many years and we have been referred to the cases of In re Anglesea Colliery Co. [1886] 1 Ch. 555; 35 LJ ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at is sufficient to bind a party by the words of the English rule is a matter upon which I entertain great doubt. The position, therefore, is that when Mr. Khanna appeared and asked to be heard, the learned Judge was wrong in thinking that he was not a person who was entitled to be heard and he may or may not have been entitled to refuse him a hearing on the ground that he had not given notice. If, upon that, Mr. Khanna had preferred an appeal, it seems to me that the appeal would have had very considerable substance. But Mr. Khanna has not preferred any appeal. We have been informed-it may or may not be so-that he has since been adjudicated insolvent. The Official Assignee has not preferred an appeal. The company has preferred the appeal. ....