TMI Blog1953 (10) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l appellant and his brothers and the control of the business was for some time with him. Later on, however, disputes arose among the members of the family ranging over a number of subjects and a long period of time and culminating in the removal of the appellant from the office of chairman of the company sometime in March, 1946. On 1st May, 1946, therefore Mr. Ladli Parshad Jaiswal filed an application in the High Court at Lahore for the winding up of this company. That petition, we understand, is still pending in that court and although, we are told by Mr. Tuli appearing for the appellant, he had made a prayer to withdraw that petition at one time, the prayer was not allowed. In December, 1951, the present petition for the winding up of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght in that respect in any ordinary civil court. Mr. Tuli contends that the learned Judge was in error in thinking that the present petition is identical with the petition pending in the Lahore High Court as he has in the present petition made allegations of fact concerning events which occurred subsequent to the petition at Lahore and he is entitled to satisfy the liquidation Judge that on those facts considered in the context of what had happened already it is just and equitable that the company be wound up. Mr. Tuli is right to this extent that some new allegations are contained in the present petition but whether they by themselves or along with some other relevant facts would or would not justify a winding up order is not for our con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus it would have been quite clear that after the partition, that is, as from 15th August, 1947, the High Court at Lahore had no jurisdiction in respect of this company with its registered office at Karnal. Paragraph (2) of article 13, however, goes on to say: "(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this order ( a ) any proceedings which immediately before the appointed day, are pending in the High Court at Lahore on its original side, including any proceedings then pending in the said High Court as a court of reference, shall be heard and determined by that Court," and paragraph (4) then provides: "(4) Subject to the following provisions of this article with respect to appeals, any order made by the High Court at Lahore eithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction merely because a court of limited jurisdiction is already seized of a similar matter. There is in my opinion force in this argument. There is as far as I am aware no rule debarring a person from instituting two or more identical suits in the same court or different courts of concurrent jurisdiction, and there seems therefore no reason why two winding up applications more or less identical cannot be maintained at the same time. The only rule regulating such matters is contained in section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code but that rule, it is admitted, would not apply to the present case, and what is more the rule does not contemplate the dismissal of either suit or proceeding but merely the stay of the one or the other. Mr. Khanna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Norwich shareholders well knew all that was being done, there was no excuse under the circumstances for presenting a second petition, and it must consequently be dismissed with costs." It will be noticed that the second petition was not dismissed because of the existence of the first petition. In the next case In re Norton Iron Company the second petition was dismissed because the first was allowed and a winding up order was made on that first petition. In the last case In re Building Societies' Trust Limited, again one of the petitions was allowed and the other thereupon dismissed. It is clear therefore that in none of these cases was a winding up petition dismissed merely because another winding up petition of the same kind was awai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maxim of law is that a Judge must extend his jurisdiction, which of course does not mean that he should usurp jurisdiction were none exists but does mean that he ought to amplify as far as possible the remedies he can grant. Mr. Tuli feels and not without justification that he cannot now obtain that measure of relief from the Lahore High Court which he is actually seeking, and if therefore there be no legal bar to his applying to this court for appropriate relief it is in my opinion only proper that relief should be afforded to him. As I have already said, I cannot see any legal bar to his maintaining the present petition in this court in spite of the previous application which is still pending in the Lahore High Court. It may be quite tru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
