Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Where a corporation is a creditor, any person who is duly authorised in writing by the corporation to act generally on behalf of the corporation at meetings of creditors and contributories and to appoint himself or any other person to be the corporation's proxy, may fill in and sign the form of proxy on the corporation's behalf and appoint himself to be the corporation's proxy and a proxy so filled in and signed by. such a parson shall be received and dealt with as the proxy of the corporation."
The simple answer to that question is that in the case of a creditor corporation perhaps it was through (thought?) advisable that it should not be made to suffer from those limitations which rules 147 and 148 impose in the case of creditors who are natural persons. That means, in the case of a creditor corporation the proxy may be any person and net necessarily a creditor and that person may fill in and sign the form of proxy on the corporation's behalf and appoint himself to be the corporation's proxy. All that is needed by such a person is that he should have been authorised in writing by the corporation to act generally on behalf of the corporation at meetings of creditors and contributories and to appoint himself or any other persons to be the corporation's proxy.
"It is possible that some authority was submitted by Shri J. P. Singh before the Chairman, authorising him to represent the Chini Mazdoor Sangh."

But this observation on the very face of it is based on mere supposition; though as a matter of fact there is nothing on the record to show that. Chini Mazdoor Sangh had given proper authority to Mr. J. P. Singh to vote on its behalf. In the case of Mr. G. G. Dubey, the only objection raised was that the proxy form executed by Pranlal Valji had not been duly attested.

In answer thereto the learned Company Judge has held and I think rightly that in the absence of any specific direction by the court in regard to the form of proxy to be filed in this case, it was not necessary at all to get the proxy attested. In view of these reasons I think there is no substance in the contention advanced by Mr. Choudhary that the order passed by the learned Company Judge in regard to the votes cast by Mr. G. K. Verma and Mr. P, K. Bose is not sustainable in law.

13. This was all the discussion on the merits of the questions raised before us. Then Mr. Choudhary has also raised a contention as to the maintainability of these appeals. The mam reason given for this latter contention is that the order under appeal is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of our Court, and in support of this contention reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the decisions in Asrumati Debi v. Rupendra Deb, AIR 1953 SC 198, Gobind Lal v. Administrator-General of Bihar, (S) AIR 1955 Pat 56 and, Vishnu Pratap v. Revati Devi, AIR 1953 All 647.