1939 (3) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ugust 1935, and on 12th September 1935 the Company called upon them to pay the amounts due on their shares. The Company, I am informed, has subsequently gone into liquidation. These defendants failed to pay the money demanded and have resisted the present suits against them on two grounds: (1) that there was no valid offer and acceptance of shares, and (2) that there was revocation of the proposal under section 6(2), Contract Act. Section 101, Companies Act, 1913, sub-clause 3 provides that the amount payable on application on each share shall not be less than 5 per cent. of the nominal amount of the share. It is admitted that these applications were subsequent to the first allotment of shares and also that they were not accompanied by any ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... subscription was a misfeasance. That being so, the Company should not be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong-doing and neglect of the provisions of the Act by demanding the share money subsequently. In support, of the second ground about revocation by the lapse of a reasonable time without communication of acceptance of the offer, reference is made to an English case, Ramsgale Hotel Co. v. Montefiore. In that case application for 50 shares accompanied by a deposit of one pound per share was made on 8th June 1864. On 8th November the defendant having received no communication from the Company withdrew his application, and on 23rd November the Company intimated that 50 shares had been allotted and demanded payment of the balance of....