9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act, 1956. There were two groups of shareholders in the aforesaid company, namely, Misra group and Singh group. Misra group had genuine shares of Rs. 1,00,000. Misra group also paid Rs. 2,50,000 to the company. It is this amount which is under dispute. In this connection Money Suit No. 35 of 1954 was filed by Misra group. The company also filed counter-title Suit No. 55 of 1953. All these suits were tried together by Sri T. P. Choudhary, Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna. In that case, it has been held that Rs. 2,50,000 was received by the company. No shares were issued in respect of Rs. 2,50,000. The learned Subordinate Judge held that in view of the fact that this amount was received by the company, the company should return this amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return Rs. 2,50,000 plus interest to Misra group. On the basis of these facts the learned Subordinate Judge held that the company did not receive Rs. 2,50,000 as share capital. If it is so, then there is no need to apply for reduction of shares under section 100(1) of the Act. Section 100(1) provides that the company should file an application for the purpose of reduction of the share capital and not for any other purpose. Learned company judge overlooked the compromise petition which was filed in the winding up proceeding in Company Case No. 1 of 1959. In that case, a compromise petition was filed before the learned company judge. In paragraphs 3 and 7 of the compromise petition, the company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,58,000 wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the admission of law made by a company is not binding upon the company unless it is an admission of fact. In this connection reference was made to a decision in Kalidas Bhanjibhai v. Stale of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 62. In the said decision it has been held that a party's opinion about the legal effect of those facts is of no consequence in construing the section. It is further held that no estoppel has arisen. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that the admission of law is not correct. In my opinion, the client is not bound by an admission of law. A party is bound so far as an admission of fact is concerned. Therefore, the statement made in the reply to the case of the Registrar is based upon wrong application of law b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
