Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"439(4). A contributory shall not be entitled to present a petition for winding up a company unless-...
(b) the shares in respect of which he is a contributory or some of them, either were originally allotted to him or have been held by him, and registered in his name, for at least six months during the eighteen months immediately before the commencement of the winding up, or have devolved on him through the death of a former holder."

12. There can be no doubt (though counsel for the company seemed to dispute it) that petitioners No.2 to 6 are contributories even though the shares on the basis of which the petition has been filed ar fully paid up shares and even though they stand in SP' name, the petitioners' names not having been placed on the company's register. This is abundantly clear on a joint dreading of section 426, 428 and 430 of the Act. The argument, however, is that the petition is that the petition is not maintainable for two reason: one is that the shares have not been held by these petitioners and registered in their names for at least six months out of the eighteen months immediately before the commencement of the winding up (i.e., before the presentation of this petition as per section 441). This condition , according to counsel, is applicable also to the case where the contributory who seeks winding up is a person on whom the shares have devolved "through the death of a farmer holder". The second is that on th death of SP, his shares had, according to para 6 of the petition, developed only on his wife, petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 is now deals and petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 can claim only as legal representatives of petitioner No.1. But the shares have devolved on them on the death of petitioner No.1 who cannot claim to be a "former holder" of the shares. Hence, petitioners Nos.2 to 6 are not competent of continue the petition for winding up.

`A contributory shall not be entitled to present a petition for winding up a company unless.... (b) the share's in respect of which he is a contributory, or some of them, either were originally allotted to him or have been held by him, and registered in his name, for at least six months during the 18 months immediately before th commencement of the winding up, or have devolved on him through the death of a former holder.' Prima facie it appears that a contributory whose name appears in the register for at list six months during the 18 months immediately before the commencement of the winding up can file a petition; such a prescription as to time limit does not seem to apply; in case the petitioner is a legal representative on whom horse have devolved through the death of a former holder. In my view, I do not think that such an invidious distinction was over contemplated by the Legislature. There is no such intendment or reason for such intendmet. Exception for the arrangement of the text of the sub-section which lend proms facie support to such a conclusion, such an obvious discriminatory treatment as between a member and a legal representative of the member and a legal representative of the member cannot be easily counted. There should be a great and compelling reason to encourage such a market distinction resulting in discrimination. To accept the text as it is would mean that what a member on the register cannot do, can be done by the legal representative of a former member.
The language used in section 439(4) is plains; but while working our the and dates prescribed therein, certain unreasonableness sets in when we are posed with the difference in the privileges granted to the two classes of persons envisaged under the section. In may view, there is no necessity at all to make any distinction between the above two set of persons. A member on the same level as another legal representative on whom shares of a deceased member devolves. But the former should, in a given case, wait for six months to file a petition for winding up and the later need not. As it is normal to adopt the intention which is in conscience with justice, reason and convenience while interpreting the meaning of the language in a particular section of a statute, I am of the view that the prescription as to time applies to both classes of persons.
Indeed, Sri V.K.Thiruvenkatachariar invite my attention to this apparent anomaly and desired that I should express my view. As I said, I am not inclined to literally read the text as it is. A slight realignments of the section as under would bring out the true effect of it and avoid all controversy about the problems posed:
`A contributory shall not be entitled to present a petition for winding up a company unless... (b) the shares n respect of which the is a contribute, or some of them either were originally allotted to him or have been, held by him, or have devolved on him through the death of a former holder and registered in his name, for at lest six months during the 18 months immediately before the commencement of the winding up.' The petitioner in this case claims by devolution of interest in the shares of the deceased, Balasubramanaim Odayar; she has had not shown that prior to this petition for winding up, she has held shares in her own name for at lest six mo thus during the 18 months before the application. On this ground also the petition should fail."