Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to interfere with the District Judge's order under the Companies Act, 1913; (ii) Whether the August 2 resolution altering the rights attached to deferred shares required sanction under Section 54 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913; (iii) Whether the October 11 resolution consolidating ordinary and deferred shares could be considered independently under Section 54 and sanctioned.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court had revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to interfere with the District Judge's order under the Companies Act, 1913.
Analysis: The Companies Act did not expressly or impliedly exclude revisional power. The District Court, though empowered to exercise company jurisdiction, remained a subordinate court within Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The order was a case decided and was not appealable, so the statutory conditions for revision were satisfied.
Conclusion: The High Court had revisional jurisdiction and the preliminary objection was rejected, in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the August 2 resolution altering the rights attached to deferred shares required sanction under Section 54 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.
Analysis: The memorandum itself permitted variation of the rights for the time being attached to the different classes of shares through the procedure in the articles. The August resolution was passed in accordance with that reserved power and did not constitute an alteration of the memorandum requiring resort to Section 54. The resolution also did not amount to a compromise or arrangement requiring court sanction under Section 153.
Conclusion: The August 2 resolution was valid without court sanction, in favour of the appellant.
Issue (iii): Whether the October 11 resolution consolidating ordinary and deferred shares could be considered independently under Section 54 and sanctioned.
Analysis: Once the August resolution had validly equalised the rights of the two classes, the October resolution merely consolidated shares of different classes and no longer interfered with any special privilege. The proviso to Section 54 therefore did not apply, although the consolidation still required the court's confirmation because it reorganised the share capital and modified the memorandum to that extent.
Conclusion: The October 11 resolution could be sanctioned independently and the refusal to confirm it was , in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The revisional order was set aside and the company's application for consolidation of share capital was granted with costs left to be borne by the parties themselves.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the memorandum itself reserves power to vary class rights through the prescribed internal procedure, a resolution passed in conformity with that procedure does not amount to an amendment of the memorandum requiring sanction under Section 54; and a later consolidation of shares may be sanctioned on its own footing once the class rights have been validly equalised.