Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Gulabrai Kalidas Naik And Ors. vs Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel Of Baroda And ... on 6 May, 1977 cites

Matheran Steam Light Tramway vs B.N. Lang on 24 August, 1926

22. Now, as against these decisions, Mr. B. R. Shah, learned advocate, drew my attention to Matheran Steam Tramway Co. v. B. N. Lang [1931] 1 Comp Cas 206 (Bom). A petition for rectification of register was made which was accepted by Taraporewala J. In an appeal against the decision granting rectification of register, Marten C.J., speaking for the Division Bench, while negativing the contention that a petition involving complicated questions should not be entertained under section 38 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, observed that at the most it is a matter of decoration for the court whether in any particular case it will hear the petition or leave the parties to a separate suit. It was further observed that an express issue on this point was raised and as the learned single judge exercised his discretion by deciding to hear the petition, no case was made out to overrule him and force the parties to begin de novo. A submission that suit would involve long-protracted and expensive litigation was also taken into consideration, while negativing contention for directing the party to a suit. In a concurring judgment Kemp J. first referred to the relevant considerations that in England an application for rectification may be made by motion or by originating summons and, in such a proceeding, making an order under section 116 is in the discretion of the court and where there is conflict of evidence the order may be refused without prejudice to the applicant's right to bring an action for rectification. It was then observed that in the case before the court there was no conflict of evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Rao Saheb Manilal Gangaram Sindore And ... vs Western India Theatres Ltd. And Ors. on 8 February, 1962

In Manilal Gangaram Sindore v. Western India Theatres Ltd. [1963] 33 Comp Cas 826(Bom), it was on served that the provision made in section 155 for a procedure by way of an application is only a provision for a summary procedure. But is does not whittle down or abrogate the provision by way of a suit for getting the relief contemplated by that section. In that case, the matter was brought before the court for rectification of register of the members maintained by the defendant-company, alleging that the latter has wrongfully refused to register in their name certain shares in respect of which they has submitted to the company duly completed transfer form. A preliminary objection was raised that the subject-matter of the suit has been valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 1,300, and the High Court on its original side will have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. While examining this contention, it was said that civil court has jurisdiction to decide all questions of title to property and that the shares being one such property, civil court can entertain the suit where title to property is disputed and that remedy under section 155 is a summary remedy. In fact that question hardly fell for consideration and it appears to have been decided on the concession. This becomes distinctly clear from the observation that : "Mr. Gupta himself quite frankly and fairly did not dispute the proposition that the procedure laid down in section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, was only a summary procedure and that the relief provided for in that section was available also at common law in a common law action." Relief at common law is available is not in dispute. Is it because such a relief is available that the court could decline to exercise jurisdiction under section 155 ? And let it be remembered in that case that suit was filed by the plaintiff for rectification of register. The jurisdiction question arose on the ground that the High Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Sadashiv Shankar Dandige vs The Gandhi Sewa Samaj Ltd. And Anr. on 7 September, 1957

Incidentally reference was also made to Sadashiv Shanker Dandige v. Gandhi Seva Samaj [1958] 28 Comp Cas 137; AIR 1958 Bom 247, wherein it is also observed that jurisdiction of the court under section 155 is of a summary nature and, therefore, obviously detailed investigation cannot be entered into. Then comes an observation which is very material. It reads as under (page 142) :
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Jayashree Shantaram Vankudre vs Rajkamal Kalamandir Private Ltd on 28 June, 1955

19. Turning now to the decisions, in Jayashree Shantaram Vankudre v. Rajkamal Kalamandir [1960] 30 Comp Cas 141 (Bom), the petition was made prior to 1st October, 1959, because the date of the court's judgment is 19th January, 1959, meaning thereby prior to the enactment of the Companies (Court) Rules, which made it obligatory to commence action for rectification by way of a petition. The matter till then was governed by the Original Side Rules of the Bombay High Court. The petitioner had sought rectification of register in respect of 251 shares in respect of which the company had registered a transfer in favour of respondent No. 2. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 were wife and husband at some point of time in their life, though possible they had parted company when the dispute came to the court. Transfer was made pursuant to a resolution adopted at a meeting of the board of directors, which found its place in the minute book, and it was urged that the minute book in respect of the relevant entry is fabricated. It was also urged that the transfer deed was a fabricated document. Mr. Mehta said that in that case the two important allegations were that the minute book was fabricated and transfer deed was forged and that these contentions are identical with those which arise in the petition before me and that in such a situation, the Bombay High Court declined to entertain the petition and directed the party to a suit. In reaching this conclusion, the court first referred to the question set out above from the earlier edition of Halsbury's Laws of England.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1