TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision Bench of the High Court, therefore, was right in granting the decree as prayed for. - CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 737-738 OF 1997 - - - Dated:- 3-2-1997 - K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ. P.N. Lekhi, R.K. Chadha and Praveen Jain for the Appellant. Soli J. Sorabjee, Ms. Suruchi Agarwal and Mrs. Pratima Malhotra for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, made on November 14, 1996, in R.F.A. Nos. 230 and 231 of 1985. The admitted position is that the respondents, Mrs. Surjeet Malhan and Mr. B.K. Malhan, wife and husband respectively, laid two suit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the board of directors and they were not duly registered in the register maintained by the Registrar in that behalf, there was a complete transaction ; the Division Bench, therefore, is not right in reversing the judgment of the single judge. We find no force in the contentions. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any specific authority by the owner of the shares, i.e. , Mrs. Surjeet Malhan in favour of any third party, including her husband, he gets no right to transfer her shares; nor does Bhagat get any right and title in the shares held by Mrs. Malhan. Even the judgment cited by Shri Lekhi in Balkrishan Gupta v. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. [1985] 58 Comp. Cas. 563 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 (at page 578): "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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
