TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1959 (1) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... directors of respondent No. 1 company on July 1, 1955. From the deed of transfer dated June 28, 1955, a copy whereof is annexed as exhibit 2 to the affidavit in reply made on behalf of respondent No. 1 company, it appears that the petitioner had signed the deed of transfer in respect of these 251 ordinary shares of the company. In the register of shares of respondent No. 1 company as on July 1, 1955, these shares were transferred and registered in the name of respondent No. 2. From the minutes of the meeting of the directors held on July 1, 1955, it appears that the petitioner and the said Shantaram were both present at the said meeting and the application for transfer of the shares from the name of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the procedure prescribed under section 155 of the Indian Companies Act is a summary remedy and should not be allowed to be resorted to in matters involving complicated questions such as have arisen in this petition. He contends that questions of forgery and fabrication of documents are not proper to be tried under the summary procedure of an application under section 155 of the Companies Act. He has in that connection referred me to various textbooks. In Volume VI of Halsbury's Laws of England the summary of the purport of the English decisions in this connection appears in article 448. The relevant observations in that article are as follows (page 218) : "The application may be made by the person aggrieved........It may be by motion or s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt whether in any particular case it will hear the petition or leave the parties to a separate suit. An express issue was raised on this point, and the learned Judge exercised his discretion by deciding to hear this petition. Under those circumstances, we do not think we ought to overrule him, and force the parties to begin de novo. Mr. Dinshaw's explanation as to why he did not bring a separate suit was because it would in effect be carried on at his own expense. There is the additional circumstance that a petition under section 38 should be a speedier and cheaper process than an ordinary suit." The effect of the above observations appears to me to be that the appeal court was not willing to interfere with the discretion that was used by ....