Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1965 (8) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT
Invalidity of the notice dated January 20, 1957
Held that:- Fail to see how the order of the court dated January 30, 1957, can amount to a notice under article 29. The only notice tinder article 29 is the one dated January 20, 1957, and as that notice 1s defective, the forfeiture is invalid.
The respondents are not seeking equitable relief against forfeiture. They are asserting their legal right to the shares on the ground that the forfeiture is invalid and they continue to be the legal owners of the shares. Secondly, the maxim does not mean that every improper conduct of the applicant disentitles him to equitable relief. The maxim may be invoked where the conduct complained of is unfair and unjust in relation to the subject-matter of the litigation and the equity sued for. The unwarranted proceedings under sections 402 and 237 of the Companies Act, 1956, and other vexatious proceedings started by the respondents have no relation to the invalidity of the forfeiture and the relief of rectification and are not valid grounds for refusing relief. Appeal dismissed.