Skip to content


M.R.M. Ramasami Chetty, Managing Director of M.R.M. Ramasami Chetti and Co. Ltd. Vs. V.S. Chengalraya Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in94Ind.Cas.892
AppellantM.R.M. Ramasami Chetty, Managing Director of M.R.M. Ramasami Chetti and Co. Ltd.
RespondentV.S. Chengalraya Pillai
Excerpt:
companies act (vii of 1913), section 101 - allotment of shares--agreement before formation of company to allot shares--ratification by directors after registration--liability of company to furnish particulars--default--penalty. - .....of the business to certain shares allotted otherwise than in cash. the petitioner thought that the contract entered into before the company was registered would be sufficient; but the registrar demanded a contract entered into by the company and since such a contract was not ' in writing, he called for prescribed particulars under section 104 (2). instead of furnishing these duly stamped, the petitioner produced the previous contract ratified at a meeting of the directors. the registrar held that this was not a compliance with his demand and prosecuted the petitioner under section 101 (3). he has been fined rs. 100. hence the petition. i do not think that the ratification by the board of directors can be described as a contract in writing constituting the title of the allottee; and in.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jackson, J.

1. Petition to revise the judgment and sentence of the Second Presidency Magistrate, in C.C. No. 20052 of 1924.

2. The petitioner sold his business to certain persons under a contract dated 1st October 1922. On 7th October 1922 these persons registered themselves as a Company. The Company furnished a return of allotment of shares under Section 101, Act. VII of 1913. The Registrar acting under Section 101 (6) called for the contract in writing entitling the vendor of the business to certain shares allotted otherwise than in cash. The petitioner thought that the contract entered into before the Company was registered would be sufficient; but the Registrar demanded a contract entered into by the Company and since such a contract was not ' in writing, he called for prescribed particulars under Section 104 (2). Instead of furnishing these duly stamped, the petitioner produced the previous contract ratified at a meeting of the Directors. The Registrar held that this was not a compliance with his demand and prosecuted the petitioner under Section 101 (3). He has been fined Rs. 100. Hence the petition. I do not think that the ratification by the Board of Directors can be described as a contract in writing constituting the title of the allottee; and in the absence of any such contract in writing the petitioner was bound to furnish the prescribed particulars duly stamped. There is, therefore no ground for revision. The petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //