Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parayan in K.N. Guruswamy vs Indo-Carnatic Bank, Ltd. on 24 November, 1939Matching Fragments
3. In Knight's Case (1867) 2 Ch. A. 321 the articles and the facts were somewhat similar save that in addition, although not authorized, the secretary of the company, upon the shareholders failing to make payment, made the necessary entries regarding forfeiture, and in that case it was held too that there was a forfeiture. Both the decisions to which I have referred were considered in Bigg's case (1865) 1 Eq. 309. In that case, the share-holder received a notice that on non-payment of arrears of call by a particular time his shares would be forfeited without further notice. He was the holder of about 150 shares and shortly before the date of expiry of the time given him for payment he went to the company's office, paid the amounts due in respect of about ten shares and intimated that in regard to the balance he was prepared to be treated as a defaulter and his shares to be forfeited. In the course of the judgment, Sir W. Page Wood V.G. in referring to the two earlier cases I cited, pointed out that emphasis was placed upon the conduct which followed the purported action of forfeiture or the giving of the notice, namely that the companies and the shareholders in both the cases treated the forfeitures as having been effected. There was no resolution subsequent to the giving of the notice in Bigg's case (1865) 1 Eq. 309, which provided for a forfeiture, and it was held that there was in fact no forfeiture and the name of the shareholder was included in the list of the contributories. All the above decisions were considered by a Division Bench in Parayan Prasad v. Gay a Bank and Trades Association Ltd. (1931) 18 A.I.R. Pat. 44. In that case, there was a notice which was to the same effect as was given to the two contributories now before me with which there was non-compliance, and the articles of the company were to the same effect as those of this company. The learned Judges of the Patna High Court considered all authorities including those I mentioned and held that in the case before them there was no forfeiture effected.