Law: Companies Act (VII of 1913)

Section: 93,97,235,103

Companies Act (VII of 1913)----Ss. 93, 97 & 235 Contravention of requirements of S.93-Gives rise to personal right of action in favour of subscriber and entitles him to compensation-Provisions of S. 235 not attracted-Object of S. 235: augmenting assets of company suffering loss due to misapplication, retainer misfeasance, etc.-No evidence that either any subscriber or company itself suffered any loss due to non-disclosure in prospectus facts mentioned in. Ss. 93 (f) & 93 (1)-Provisions of S. 235 cannot be invoked.   Indian States Bank's case A I R 1934 All. 855; Rao Sahib's case A I R 1942 Mad. 365 and Peninsular Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. H. L. Reed and others A I R 1937 Pat. 293 distinguished.   Companies Act (VII of 1913)-----S. 103----Company amalgamating and taking over business of another pre-existing company-Business carried on by such pre-existing company prior to amalgamation-Cannot be deemed business done by amalgamating company in violation of provisions of S. 103.   Dates of hearing: 28th September, 13th and 14th October 1964.   JUDGMENT   This is an application under section 235 of the Companies Act by the Province of West Pakistan as the successor of the Bahawalpur State- against 6 directors of Messrs Pak Air Ltd. a public limited liability company now in liquidation. The six directors who have been cited as respondents in this petition are (1) Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Gurmani, (2) Mr. Yusuf Abdullah Haroon, (3) Mr. Muhammad Hussain Malik, (4) Mr. Fakhruddin Valibhai, (5) Mr. Mahmood Abdullah Haroon, and (6) Mr. Jalaluddin Malik. The respondents are alleged to have been guilty of misfeasance in the affairs of the said Company and it is prayed that the aforesaid directors be compelled to repay or restore or to contribute the money of the Company to the extent set out in the application with interest at such a rate as the Court may think fit. When this petition had first come up an objection was raised that the application was barred by time and this was placed before a Division Bench of which I was one of the members and by our order dated 18-2-64 we over-ruled the objection of limitation raised on behalf of the…