TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1970 (5) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re alleged to have been purchased in the year 1955, and it was also alleged that the Reserve Bank of India through its exchange control department granted permission for the transfer of these shares in the name of the respondent, Walaiti Lal. The said transfer deeds are alleged to have been duly stamped and were sent to the company by the respondent. In C.O. No. 63 of 1960, Walaiti Lal, respondent, is alleged to have purchased on 9th of May, 1957, shares from K.B.Malik and Co., Stock and Share Brokers, New Delhi, 63 shares standing in the name of Ram Singh, respondent in that case, and, accordingly, a prayer for the transfer of the shares in the respondent's name was made to the company. In C. O. No. 64 of 1960 it was alleged that 2,085 fully paid up shares and 1,000 partly paid up shares in the capital of the company were purchased about the middle of 1955 by the respondent from Mr. H.C Bevan Petman, respondent No. 2 in the petition, and E.D. Dignasse, respondent No. 3, trustees for the estate of late Mr. Bevan Petman. A request was made for transferring the said shares in the name of the respondent. Further averment on behalf of the respondent is that in each of these th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant that this appeal is still pending. Apart from the relief regarding the rectification of the register of members of the company, the petitioner also prayed for the payment of dividends accrued on the shares as also for damages amounting to Rs. 5,500 in C. O. No. 62 of 1960, Rs. 630 in C. O. No. 63 of 1960 and Rs. 30,850 in C. O. No. 64 of 1960. The damages were claimed at the rate of Rs. 10 per share in each case. These petitions were resisted by the company on a number of grounds and the issues in C. O. Nos. 62 and 64 of 1960 are identical which are reproduced below : (a)Is the petition within time ? (b)Is it not a fit case for summary trial under section 155 of the Companies Act ? (c)Is the petition not maintainable or liable to be stayed in view of the suit mentioned in preliminary objection No. 3 (in C. O. No. 62) and No. 2 (in C. O. No. 64) ? (d)Is the respondent barred from re-agitating his pleas in defence in this petition in view of the decision of the Central Government and the decision of this court in the writ petition ? (e)Has the name of the petitioner been omitted from the register of members of the respondent-company without sufficient caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 62 and 64 and issue (d) in C. O. No. 63 were decided in favour of the petitioner-respondent. As regards dividends under issue (f) in C. O. Nos. 62 and 64 and issue (e) in C. O. No. 63, it was held by the learned single judge that in C. O. No. 63 of 1960, the amount of dividend due from January 1, 1956, up to 1960-61 is Rs. 229.95 and it was found that the same amount should be paid by the appellant company to the respondent-shareholder. As regards C. O. No. 64 of 1960, it was found that a sum of Rs. 31,099.75 is due from the years 1950 up to and including 1960-61, which has to be paid by the company to Walaiti Lal, shareholder. As regards C. O. No. 62 of 1960, so far as the dividends which accrued subsequent to the 6th of April, 1956, that is, the date of transfer deed in favour of Walaiti Lal, it was ordered that the same dividends should be paid to the petitioner which amounted to Rs. 1,975 and as regards the dividends which accrued prior to April 1, 1956, it was found that it would not be proper to decide in that petition as to whether any dividend was due to Walaiti Lal. The claim regarding the damages in all the three C. Os. was not decreed by the learned single judge. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....69 and Arjan Singh Bir Singh v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1963] 33 Comp. Cas. 534 ; AIR 1963 Punj. 341. Both these authorities have been considered by the learned single judge in his order and he rightly came to the conclusion that these authorities do not substantiate the contention of the learned counsel. In Harinagar Sugar Mill's case (supra) the question before the Supreme Court was whether the Central Government hearing an appeal under section 111(3) of the Act was acting in the exercise of judicial powers or the administrative powers. It was held that the power under section 111(3) of the Act was a judicial power. It was further held in this case that the remedies provided under sections 111 and 155 of the Act were alternative remedies and that an appeal lies to the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution against an order of the Central Government passed under section 111(3) of the Act. In Arjan Singh's case (supra) the principle laid down by the learned judge was that the jurisdiction of this court under section 155 of the Act is not to sit as appellate or revisional authority against the order passed by the Central Government under section 111....