TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1940 (12) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the third Judge Mr. Padmanabha Iyengar being then absent. The judgment as signed and issued purports to be a judgment of all the three Judges of the Court. A report submitted by the learned Chief Judge makes it clear that the case was actually heard only by the Chief Judge and the second Judge and that these two Judges alone were concerned with the preparation of the judgment and they signed it without reference to the third Judge. By some regrettable error, the judgment thus completed seems to have been placed before the third Judge for signature and he also signed it though he had nothing whatever to do with the trial of the case. It is no doubt regrettable that a Judge should sign a judgment about which he knows nothing and with which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re certificate is Ex. III and this certificate contains an endorsement of transfer signed by Mr. Ratna Mudaliar and dated the 26th February transferring the shares to the plaintiff; but the spaces for the signature of the transferee and of the company's officials are not filled. A few days after this transaction Mr. Ratna Mudaliar resigned his position in the management of the company and the plaintiff became its chairman. Nothing more was done in the matter of the transfer of the shares until the company got into difficulties and went into liquidation in November. Then we have Ex. IV dated the 20th November, 1934, which is a lawyer's notice to the two defendants claiming payment of the amount due under the promissory note. The suit on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....II show that the shares were transferred on the 26th February 1934 and somehow they seem to think that the crucial question in the case is whether there was a valid agreement to transfer the shares and that this would depend upon whether Mr. Ratna Mudaliar's acceptance of the plaintiff's offer was communicated to the plaintiff. It was for a decision ox these questions that a new trial was ordered. It is conceded on both sides before me that the questions formulated for decision at the fresh trial are not the real questions which arise in the case and it is also not seriously disputed that the Bench has given findings of facts which are in conflict with those of the trial Judge and that it is on the basis of these findings of facts that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld complete the formalities by handing over the cancelled promissory note and getting the transfer registered in the company's books there was nothing more for Mr. Ratna Mudaliar to do and title in the shares would pass to the transferee : vide Manekji Pestonji v. Wadilal Sarabhai & Co. [1926] 50 Bom. 360, I am not prepared to take the view that Ex. II by itself would amount to a transfer deed sufficient to cause title to pass. It purports to be an agreement of transfer accompanying the actual instrument of transfer and if the instrument of transfer has not been completed so far as the transferor could complete it, Ex. II by itself would be nothing more than an enforceable agreement to convey and until the transfer endorsement was signed th....