TMI Blog1970 (5) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sharaf-ud-din, another respondent. These shares are alleged to have been purchased in the year 1955, and it was also alleged that the Reserve Bank of India through its exchange control department granted permission for the transfer of these shares in the name of the respondent, Walaiti Lal. The said transfer deeds are alleged to have been duly stamped and were sent to the company by the respondent. In C.O. No. 63 of 1960, Walaiti Lal, respondent, is alleged to have purchased on 9th of May, 1957, shares from K.B.Malik and Co., Stock and Share Brokers, New Delhi, 63 shares standing in the name of Ram Singh, respondent in that case, and, accordingly, a prayer for the transfer of the shares in the respondent's name was made to the company. In C. O. No. 64 of 1960 it was alleged that 2,085 fully paid up shares and 1,000 partly paid up shares in the capital of the company were purchased about the middle of 1955 by the respondent from Mr. H.C Bevan Petman, respondent No. 2 in the petition, and E.D. Dignasse, respondent No. 3, trustees for the estate of late Mr. Bevan Petman. A request was made for transferring the said shares in the name of the respondent. Further averment on behal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We are told by the learned counsel for the appellant that this appeal is still pending. Apart from the relief regarding the rectification of the register of members of the company, the petitioner also prayed for the payment of dividends accrued on the shares as also for damages amounting to Rs. 5,500 in C. O. No. 62 of 1960, Rs. 630 in C. O. No. 63 of 1960 and Rs. 30,850 in C. O. No. 64 of 1960. The damages were claimed at the rate of Rs. 10 per share in each case. These petitions were resisted by the company on a number of grounds and the issues in C. O. Nos. 62 and 64 of 1960 are identical which are reproduced below : ( a )Is the petition within time ? ( b )Is it not a fit case for summary trial under section 155 of the Companies Act ? ( c )Is the petition not maintainable or liable to be stayed in view of the suit mentioned in preliminary objection No. 3 (in C. O. No. 62) and No. 2 (in C. O. No. 64) ? ( d )Is the respondent barred from re-agitating his pleas in defence in this petition in view of the decision of the Central Government and the decision of this court in the writ petition ? ( e )Has the name of the petitioner been omitted from the register of member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the order of the Central Government. Issue (e) in C. O. Nos. 62 and 64 and issue (d) in C. O. No. 63 were decided in favour of the petitioner-respondent. As regards dividends under issue ( f ) in C. O. Nos. 62 and 64 and issue ( e ) in C. O. No. 63, it was held by the learned single judge that in C. O. No. 63 of 1960, the amount of dividend due from January 1, 1956, up to 1960-61 is Rs. 229.95 and it was found that the same amount should be paid by the appellant company to the respondent-shareholder. As regards C. O. No. 64 of 1960, it was found that a sum of Rs. 31,099.75 is due from the years 1950 up to and including 1960-61, which has to be paid by the company to Walaiti Lal, shareholder. As regards C. O. No. 62 of 1960, so far as the dividends which accrued subsequent to the 6th of April, 1956, that is, the date of transfer deed in favour of Walaiti Lal, it was ordered that the same dividends should be paid to the petitioner which amounted to Rs. 1,975 and as regards the dividends which accrued prior to April 1, 1956, it was found that it would not be proper to decide in that petition as to whether any dividend was due to Walaiti Lal. The claim regarding the damages in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [1961] 31 Comp. Cas. 387 ; [1961] 2 SCR 381 ; AIR 1961 SC 1669 and Arjan Singh Bir Singh v. Panipat Woollen General Mills Co. Ltd. [1963] 33 Comp. Cas. 534 ; AIR 1963 Punj. 341. Both these authorities have been considered by the learned single judge in his order and he rightly came to the conclusion that these authorities do not substantiate the contention of the learned counsel. In Harinagar Sugar Mill's case ( supra ) the question before the Supreme Court was whether the Central Government hearing an appeal under section 111(3) of the Act was acting in the exercise of judicial powers or the administrative powers. It was held that the power under section 111(3) of the Act was a judicial power. It was further held in this case that the remedies provided under sections 111 and 155 of the Act were alternative remedies and that an appeal lies to the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution against an order of the Central Government passed under section 111(3) of the Act. In Arjan Singh's case ( supra ) the principle laid down by the learned judge was that the jurisdiction of this court under section 155 of the Act is not to sit as appellate or revisional a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll earlier communications in which the dividend was asked to be paid to the transferee should be taken to be superseded. We are of the opinion that the transferee is entitled to the dividend only from the date of purchase of the shares, that is, March 21, 1955, and previous to that he is not entitled to any dividend on the shares which he purchased on this date. Thus we modify the judgment of the learned single judge to the extent that in C. O. No. 64 of 1960, the amount of dividend on the shares purchased by the respondent in this case has to be paid to the respondent, Walaiti Lal, from March 21, 1955, upto 1961, including 1960-61, and not previous to that. To this extent the appeal must succeed. As regards objection No. 4, we have gone through the petitions filed under section 155 of the Act and we find that in paragraph 21 of the petitions, a claim is clearly made for the dividend to be paid on the shares in dispute in all the three cases. Thus it is factually incorrect to say that no claim was made in the petitions for the dividend by the respondent, Walaiti Lal. Regarding the question that this court has no power under section 155 of the Companies Act to grant dividend, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
