Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.19 seconds)Kurri Veerareddi And Ors. vs Kurri Bapireddi And Anr. on 9 March, 1904
509, are explained as not overruling the principle laid down in Kurri Vcerareddi v. Kurri Bapireddi (1906) I.L.R. 29 Mad. 336.
Indian Companies Act, 1913
Malraju Lakshimi Venkayamma Rao Garu vs Meka Venkataramiah Appa Rao Bahadur ... on 2 April, 1918
801, and Venkayyamma Rao v. Appa Rao (1916) I.L.R. 39 Mad.
Bapu Apaji Potdar vs Kashinath Sadoba Gulmire on 22 December, 1916
Though a different view has been taken in Calcutta and Bombay in Akbar Fakir v. Intail Sayal (1915) 29 I.C. 707, Syamkisor v. Dineschandra (1918) 31 Cal L.J. 75 and Bapu Apaji v. Kashinath Sadoba (1916) I.L.R. 41 Bom. 438, the decision of our High Court is binding on us and we do not think we can hold that a transfer otherwise than as is provided by the Companies Act and the Articles of Association can be valid. Treating the right of the private transferee therefore as merely a right in equity to compel the vendor to execute a proper conveyance and the transaction evidenced by the transfer as merely an agreement to convey, capable of being perfected into an absolute conveyance by complying with the rules laid down in the Companies Act and the Articles of Association, the question is whether he has any priority over the auction purchaser in a court sale who has given notice to the Company of his purchase. We do not think he has any such priority.
Article 18 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Manilal Brijlal Shah vs The Gordhan Spinning And Manufacturing ... on 7 September, 1916
It is argued by Mr. Krishnaswamy Iyer that when there is a court sale and a purchaser under it there is no discretion left for the directors that they are bound to transfer the shares. It is argued by Mr. Narayanamurthi for the other side that there is nothing in the Companies Act or the Articles of Association to make any difference between private sales and sales in execution of decrees, the necessity for the sanction of the directors being to prevent undesirable persons or debtors of the company from getting transfers of shares. The reason applies with equal force to private or court purchasers. We agree with the view taken in Manilal Brijlal v. The Gordhan Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1916) I.L.R. 41. Bom. 76 that there is still a discretion in the Directors to recognise or not purchasers in execution of decrees. So far as regards the transferee from the shareholder under Ex. L is concerned, it is clear that the document of transfer does not conform with the provisions of the Companies Act or with the Articles of Association of the Companies. The present case is governed by the Companies Act of 1882 and by the Articles of Association of the various companies. It is clear that both under the Act and the Articles of Association the instrument of transfer of the shares of the Company has to be executed both by the transferor and transferee and in the form prescribed. So far as the transferee is concerned, the form contains a statement by the transferee that he agrees to take the shares subject to the condition on which the vendor himself holds the shares. The Act also provides that the transferor shall be deemed to remain the holder of the shares until the name of the transferee is entered in the Companies registers (See Table A I schedule). Section 44 of the Companies Act of 1882 enacts that the share or other interest of any member in a company shall be movable property capable of being transferred in manner provided by the regulations of a company.