1931 (7) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ascertain whether the modifications suggested were acceptable to the statutory majority, after first obtaining the approval of the present appellants to those modifications. A meeting was held on July 8, 1928, and on July 21, one of the official liquidators, Mr. N.M. Jhaveri, made a report, Exhibit 58. On August 5, Dhirajlal made an application to sanction the scheme as modified. The court declined to give sanction on the ground that there was not the requisite statutory majority as required by section 153 of the Indian Companies Act. Dhirajlal filed First Appeal No. 556 of 1928, but died during the pendency of the appeal, and his heirs not having been brought on the record the appeal has abated. The present appeal is by Motilal Kanj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tributories from liability further than that which is contemplated or imposed by the scheme. See In re London Chartered Bank of Australia [1893] 3 Ch 540; 62 LJ Ch 841; 69 LT 593; 42 WR 14; 3 R 696. Under section 174 of the Indian Companies Act, the Court may, as to all matters relating to a winding up, have regard to the wishes of the creditors or contributories as proved to it by any sufficient evidence. It appears clear, therefore, that in considering a scheme the wishes of the creditors and the contributories have to be consulted and not the wishes of any person who may have propounded a scheme. The appellants have no present interest in the affairs of the company, but only a prospective interest if the scheme is sanctioned. They are ne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l: see the decision of the Privy Council in Chandrika Bakhsh Singh v. Indar Bikram Singh [1916] ILR 38 All 440; 18 Bom LR 846; 20 CWN 1149; [1916] 2 MWN 120; 4 LW 288; 31 MLJ 505; 14 ALJ 1024; 24 CLJ 291; 35 IC 858, where a person, who has no present title to protect and no interest which can give him a right to contest, is described by their Lordships of the Privy Council as "a mere impertinent intervener in another person's affair." It is contended on behalf of the appellants that they were parties in the lower Court, but the mere fact that they were parties in the lower Court does not invest them with a right to appeal unless they conclusively prove that their rights are adversely affected by the decision of the lower Court. I, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith the estate (in which he was himself not interested), and the Judicial Commissioners went into the merits, and decided that the window's dealings with the estate were unauthorised, and ought to be set aside. The Privy Council reversed this decision, holding that, inasmuch as the respondent had admitted that he himself had no interest in the estate, the Judicial Commissioners were wrong in hearing him in appeal, and that the appeal should have been dismissed. It was argued that the appellant before us had a right to appeal, inasmuch as he had been made a party to the proceedings in the lower Court; and, secondly, that he was interested in the appeal, as the scheme of arrangement that was rejected was put forward by him, and, if it had ....