TMI Blog1959 (2) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are register by deleting their names from the register. Their main contention is that they were not shareholders at the time this banking company was wound up and the share register showing them as shareholders is incorrect and should be rectified. The facts are not disputed. These shares were sold by the Maharaja of Sonepur and his family as early as 20th November, 1945. The copies of the sold notes are annexed with the records. The fact of sale cannot really be disputed. In fact, on the 20th December, 1945, the bank itself wrote stating that it had received the relative receipts for allotment money for registration of these shares in the name of Kumar Pinaki Bhusan Deo Rai of Naldanga. This shows that the transferee had lodged these rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovember, 1945, and also that the bank had received requests from the transferee Kumar Pinaki Bhusan Deo Rai of Naldanga for registration of those transfers in his name. The letter of the 10th August, 1953, from the Maharaja made it clear that they had ceased to be shareholders of the bank and they had no liability to the bank and they could not be included in the list of contributories. No reply apparently was given by the liquidator contesting this position. In fact, I think, there is no answer to the facts stated in the letter of the 10th August, 1953. Thereafter, the list of contributories was settled on the 7th September, 1955, but receipt of notice of the final list of contributories is denied by the disputants. The order of the 5th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame continues to appear as a shareholder on the register notwithstanding the transfer unless he can establish that the non-registration of the transfer was due entirely to the default of the company. Transferor's delay or default to have his name removed from the register of members will bar his relief after the company is wound up. When the shareholder is himself in default then his default will bar the shareholder's right to relief after the winding up notwithstanding any superadded default of the company. But when the shareholder is not in default but the company alone is, then the default will not avail as against the shareholder although it may as against the company. I do not find from the facts of the case that there are really any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
