Grammatical confusion in Bare Act

This query is : Resolved

Avinasheswar (Querist)
Follow

17 September 2007 At many places the language used in Bare Act is grammatically confusing.For explanation I am quoting section 69 here.

"No allotment shall be made of a share capital of a company offered to the public for subscription, [UNLESS THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE PROSPECTUS] which, in the opinion of the Board of Directors, must be raised by issue of share capital in order to provide for the matters specified in clause 5 of Schedule II [HAS BEEN SUBSCRIBED], and [THE SUM PAYABLE ON APPLICATION FOR THE AMOUNT SO STATED] has been paid to and received by the company, whether in cash or by a cheque or other instrument which has been paid."

Please notice the phrases which has been bracketed. The first two bracketed phrases, if read together, reads like this - THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE PROSPECTUS HAS BEEN SUBSCRIBED. How can we use a phrase "SUBSCRIBE AN AMOUNT". "SUBSCRIBE FOR SHARES" can be used.

Similarly the third bracketed phrase is very confusing. "THE SUM PAYABLE ON APPLICATION FOR THE AMOUNT SO STATED"
What does that mean?

CA. Dashrath Maheshwari

CA. Dashrath Maheshwari (Expert)
Follow

19 September 2007 yeah mr. Avinasheswar its correct but our Leaders are preparing the same so we should understand the thing. In the
"THE SUM PAYABLE ON APPLICATION FOR THE AMOUNT SO STATED" and even in complete section 69, the meaning of AMOUNT is nothing but SHARES only.

Avinasheswar

Avinasheswar (Querist)
Follow

19 September 2007 Who prepares and make amendments to the Bare Act? Is there a team of professionals which does that? What is the procedure?
Is there anyway we can point out grammatical errors or misleading statements in a Bare Act so as to suggest a rectification and is there a way to seek clarifications in respect of confusing statements included therein?