Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
M/S. John Tinson & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Etc vs Mrs. Surjeet Malhan & Anr. Etc on 3 February, 1997 cites

Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat vs Pranlal Jayanand Thakar And Ors on 17 July, 1974

There should be consensus ad idem for a concluded contract and it is seen that Section 25(1) of the Contract Act contemplates that when a transfer is without consideration, it is a void contract. It is an admitted position that there is no concluded contract between Smt. Surjeet and Bhagat. The acquiescence did not amount to consent unless Smt. Surjeet Malhan expressly authorised her husband to transfer her shares. The transfer as contemplated in this case is only for a sum of Re.1/-. As a consequence, in the eye of law, there is no consideration and, therefore, the transfer agreement is void. The question then is; whether the wife hand consented to the transfer? It is an admitted position that she had not given authority by any letter in writing or otherwise to her husband to transfer her shares in favour of Mr. Bhagat. Shri Lekhi sought to rely upon a judgment of this court in Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat vs. Pranlal Jayanand Thakur & Ors. [(1974) 2 SCC 323] in which the Privy Council judgment rendered in M.P. Barucha vs. W. Sarabhai & Co. [53 IA 92] was approved of. He contended that once the shares with blank transfer forms were entrusted, the contract is complete and, therefore, there is a concluded contract between Bhagat and the respondents. We find no force in the contention. The transaction was between the broker and the purchaser. After the broker purchased the shares on behalf of the company with blank transfer forms, the shares were entrusted. It was, therefore, concluded that the moment the shares were entrusted, being movable property, the contract was complete and, therefore, it was a valid transfer. In this case, there was no direct transaction between Mrs. Surjeet Malhan and Mr. Bhagat. It is not even the case of the appellant that Mr. Malhan had been authorised to entrust those shares and blank transfer forms to Bhagat. Under these circumstances, without any specific authority by the owner of the shares, i.e. Mrs. Surjeet Malhan in favour of third party, including her husband, he gets no right to transfer her shares; nor Bhagat gets any right and title in the shares held by Mrs. Malhan.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 79 - M H Beg - Full Document

Balkrishan Gupta And Ors vs Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1985

Even the judgment cited by Shri Lekhi in Balkrishan Gupta vs. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. [(1985) 2 SCC 167] does not help the appellants. In that case, the question was whether the appellant was a shareholder. This Court relying upon the concept of "ownership of right" discussed in Dais on Jurisprudence held that "an owner may be divested of his claims etc, arising from the right owned to such an extent that he may be left with no immediate practical benefit. He remains the owner of nonetheless because his interest will outlast that of other persons in the thing owned. The owner possesses that right which ultimately enables him to enjoy all rights in the thing owned by attracting towards himself those rights in the thing owned which for the time being belong to others, by getting rid of the corresponding burdens." In that case, similar to transfer of shares without being registered in the company, it was held that he was holder of the shares. The ration therein also has no application to the facts in this case. Accordingly, we hold that the transfer of shares held by Mrs. Malhan in favour of the appellant is invalid in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 78 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

M.P. Bharucha vs Wadilal Sarabhai And Co. And Maganlal C. ... on 1 March, 1926

There should be consensus ad idem for a concluded contract and it is seen that Section 25(1) of the Contract Act contemplates that when a transfer is without consideration, it is a void contract. It is an admitted position that there is no concluded contract between Smt. Surjeet and Bhagat. The acquiescence did not amount to consent unless Smt. Surjeet Malhan expressly authorised her husband to transfer her shares. The transfer as contemplated in this case is only for a sum of Re.1/-. As a consequence, in the eye of law, there is no consideration and, therefore, the transfer agreement is void. The question then is; whether the wife hand consented to the transfer? It is an admitted position that she had not given authority by any letter in writing or otherwise to her husband to transfer her shares in favour of Mr. Bhagat. Shri Lekhi sought to rely upon a judgment of this court in Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat vs. Pranlal Jayanand Thakur & Ors. [(1974) 2 SCC 323] in which the Privy Council judgment rendered in M.P. Barucha vs. W. Sarabhai & Co. [53 IA 92] was approved of. He contended that once the shares with blank transfer forms were entrusted, the contract is complete and, therefore, there is a concluded contract between Bhagat and the respondents. We find no force in the contention. The transaction was between the broker and the purchaser. After the broker purchased the shares on behalf of the company with blank transfer forms, the shares were entrusted. It was, therefore, concluded that the moment the shares were entrusted, being movable property, the contract was complete and, therefore, it was a valid transfer. In this case, there was no direct transaction between Mrs. Surjeet Malhan and Mr. Bhagat. It is not even the case of the appellant that Mr. Malhan had been authorised to entrust those shares and blank transfer forms to Bhagat. Under these circumstances, without any specific authority by the owner of the shares, i.e. Mrs. Surjeet Malhan in favour of third party, including her husband, he gets no right to transfer her shares; nor Bhagat gets any right and title in the shares held by Mrs. Malhan.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1