CO129-537-11 Companies Ordinance 1932 2-12-1932 - 26-5-1934 — Page 5

5

As to No.7, I see no harm in leaving

section 48(4) as it is

at any time the Hong

Kong Government may wish to impose stamp

duties on registration. The same position is to be observed in section 47(4) of the new

Tanganyika Company Ordinance No.46 of 1933;

there no stamp duty at present exists, but one

is now in contemplation and can be imposed at

any time without any consequential amendments to

the Companies Ordinance.

As to No.8, no comments excert as to :

I think that as Hong Kong

conditions are very different,

Section 19.

and this section contains a provision which has

been inforce since 1911, the observation of the

Board of Trade is hardly in point.

Section 103.

The correspondence referred

to has evidently received

the consideration of the Hong Kong Youmment

es section 274 of Ordinance 58 of 1911 25

>

amended by Ordinance 31 of 1999, has been

abandoned in favour of something much more suited,

as it seems to me, to local conditions (vide

paragraph 8 of the Attorney-General's report).

I should not refer Hong Kong to this correspondence

again.

Section 271.

I do not think there is

any ambiguity or inconsistency

worth mentioning when the section is read in the

light of section 188.

Section 263.

The sub-section seems to

me to have been left ont

deliberately. The other sub-sections provide

that the matters may be brought to the notice of

the Attorney-General, who shall (under sub-sect on