SHAMRAO KRISHNAJI HONNALI Vs. UNITED HOUSE BUILDING AND ENGINEERING SOCIETY INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals have been preferred by the defendants in suits brought by a company called the United House Building and Engineering Society (India) Ltd. , of Bangalore, which had its headquarters in the Mysore State, and as such it is a foreign company. That company filed suits against the defendants to recover certain amounts for the work done by that company for them. The principal defence of the defendants was that this company had no right to file suits in British India, inasmuch as it was not a legal body, because it has not complied with the requirements of Section 277 of the Indian Companies Act. That section says that every company incorporated outside British India, which at the commencement of this Act has a place of business in British India, and every such company which after the commencement of this Act establishes such a place of business within British India, shall, within six months from the commencement of this Act or within one month from the establishment of such place of business, as the case may be, file with the Registrar a certified copy of the charter, statutes or memorandum and articles of the company, etc. , and the full address of the registered or principal office of the company, etc. , etc. It is further laid down in this section that if a company fails to comply with any of the requirements of this section, it shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 500 or, in the case of a continuing offence, Rs. 50 for every day during which the default continues.

(2.) IT is urged for the defendants that as the requirements of this section were not complied with by the company, it was liable to a prosecution, and that although the section does not speak specifically of a company being disabled from maintaining- any action, still that is the meaning of that section, because when it makes a default in complying with the requirements of this section, then it ceases to be a legal body, and it cannot be permitted to sue in British India.

(3.) THAT being so, it is not necessary to go into the other question that has been dealt with by the lower Court and also argued here, namely, that this company had an established place of business in British India, and that therefore it came within the scope of Section 277. Even assuming that it had an established place of business in British India, and therefore, it came within the scope of Section 277, I think the section does not apply so far as a suit is concerned, and it does not disable the company from maintaining the present suits.