TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1948 (8) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9 of the plaint, as follows:- Rs. A. P. On account of application money ... 750 0 0 On account of allotment money ... 1,500 0 0 On account of 1st call ... 1,500 0 0 On account of 2nd call ... 1,000 0 0 4,750 0 0 On account of overdue interest up to date of forfeiture ... 2,067 8 0 Total ... 7,817 8 0 It was stated that the suit was within the period of limitation as the cause of action arose on 5th May, 1939, when the plaintiff company forfeited the shares under its articles of Association. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant was a shareholder to the extent of 50 prefe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich were barred by limitation. It has been further argued that the resolution of forfeiture was invalid as it was passed by a committee of directors and that this committee was not properly constituted. It appears that the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant on 7th April, 1939. From this notice it would appear that a demand was made for certain calls which were due and which had remained unpaid on his shares. The first two demands totalling a sum of Rs. 2,250 were, it is alleged, time-barred as they had fallen due on 15th December, 1933, and 25th January, 1934, and no steps had been taken to recover them within the time fixed for limitation. The lumping together in one letter of demands which were time-barred and demands which were n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue from a co-sharer by a company is by no means a suit for possession. The conclusion at which we have arrived at after an examination of section 28 and the two authorities mentioned above is that the remedy was barred but that the right was not extinguished. The third point in regard to which argument was addressed to us was that the resolution for forfeiture was invalid as it was passed by a committee of directors and that this was contrary to article 179 of the articles of Association which are to be found printed at p. 98 of the paper book. rticle 179 authorises the directors to delegate any of their powers to a committee consisting of such member or members as they think proper. Any committee so formed shall, in the exercise Ok the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son of Ai tide 32 of the articles of Association of the company before the Court, there was a special contract whereby the defendant had agreed that in the event of his shares being forfeited he would be liable to pay to the company all the moneys that were due by him for allotment, calls and further calls made on the shares allotted to him with interest, and that it was on that contract that plaintiffs were suing. It was further laid down that the cause of action for that reason arose when the company forfeited the shares and due to that circumstance the suit to recover what was due from the defendant on his shares was within time. It was observed by Coyajee, J., that having regard to the terms of article 32 of the articles of Association ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is case, we are satisfied that there is no force in this contention. From a perusal of the application which was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 6th October, 1942, it would appear that the defendant-appellant was a subscriber to the Memorandum of Association. In the interrogatories which were served on the defendant, he was specifically asked whether he was one of the original subscribers to the Memorandum of Association and the articles of Association and whether he was one of those who got them registered. The answers to these interrogatories were not given by the defendant himself, but by his Mukhtaram. The answers were of an evasive nature. They were given on 16th March, 1943, and what the Mukhtaram stated was that the defendant ....