1957 (3) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the respondent, B.M. Garg and Co. The other respondents except Djielakhat Tea Co. Ltd. have not appeared in answer to the summons. The company submits that it will abide by any order that may be made on this application. Now, these shares are disputed shares in respect of which there are many claims. On 29th August, 1951, they were registered in the name of respondent No. 1, Rabindra Nath Ghosh. In November, 1953, the respondent,, Rabindra Nath Ghosh, and the respondent, Chaya Ghosh, borrowed a sum of about Rs. 4,000 from the respondent, B.M. Garg and Co., stockbrokers, and as security for due repayment of the said loan,-respondent, Rabindra Nath Ghosh, made over to B.M. Garg and Co. the share certificates relating to those shares and a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s to respondent, Matadin Khaitan, stockbrokers. On 5th February, 1955, on the application of the respondent, Matadin Khaitan, these shares were registered by the company in Matadin's name. The trouble started thereafter. On 14th March, 1955, Matadin Khaitan sold and delivered these shares to N.L, Roy and Co., stockbrokers, who on the very same day sold and delivered those shares to Bagla and Co., stockbrokers, who in their turn sold and delivered the said shares, to the present applicant, Mukherjee Brothers, who in their turn sold and delivered the shares again to the respondent, Nandalal Srimany. It is said that Nandalal Srimany, after obtaining delivery of the said shares filled up his own name on the blank transfer deeds and forwarded....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s in respect of these shares nor even did they apply to the company for registering these shares in the name of Srimany, which they are now attempting to do by the present application to the court without any application to the company. Therefore, it has been contended that they could not be regarded as "the person aggrieved" within the meaning of section 155 of the Companies Act. There are some more disputes in respect of these shares. It is necessary, therefore, to continue the account of the facts. In April, 1955, respondents Rabindra Nath Ghosh and Chaya Ghosh filed a suit here in this court against B. M. Garg and Co. for redemption and delivery of those shares and alternatively, for damages. That was suit No. 1180 of 1955 in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e said shares although discharging him in respect of the other shares as such receiver but he was to continue as such receiver in respect of the shares which are the subject matter of the present application and he was to act subject to further orders of court. Now, no notice of this application was given to the official receiver. It is true that both the plaintiffs and the defendant, in that suit wherein the receiver was appointed, have been served with notice of this application and are appearing on this application, yet, I think, it should have been proper for the applicant to have given notice to the official receiver also. I hold however that the application cannot fail on that ground because it is a purely formal defect of a kind w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....annot be called an owner of the shares. It is fundamental for the court to see that under section 155 of the Companies Act it does not put on the share register some person who has not at least a prima facie title to the shares in question. Secondly, I am satisfied that these particular shares are the subject-matter of many claims and interests thereupon with a disputed chain of title. On these facts I do not consider that the summary procedure provided in section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, is at all the proper procedure. It is necessary to notice the same argument put in another form to oppose this application. That argument is based on sub-section (3) of section 155 of the Companies Act. It is argued that on an application under t....