9911796707
TMI Blog1932 (2) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain of the defendants at a meeting of the Directors of the Arjya Insurance Company Ltd., held on 23rd March 1922 and purporting to give effect to a resolution passed at a meeting of the' share-holders held on 30th March 1913, increasing the share capital, and the acts done by them on the basis of subscription of such shares are illegal, ultra vires and void and that the principal defendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it required confirmation at a subsequent meeting. The learned Judge in the lower appellate Court found that this resolution was good and valid. In the present case we desire to express no opinion either for or against this view and the matter must be left open. 2. The other point which was found by the learned Judge in the lower appellate Court against the appellant was that a declaratory s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in a company with 20,000 shares, whereas the defendant says that he is a share-holder in a company with 20,000 shares plus the increased capital under the contested resolution. It is legal character and his property are there as a share-holder and neither the defendant nor anybody else is denying his title to that right or property. The only tiling that can be said is, not that the defendant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 36, Companies Act. Whether that be so or not, and assuming that a suit of this character wore open to him, I would at least have expected to find that the relief which would be claimable in an application to us company would have been claimed as ancillary to the declaratory relief nought in this suit. Probably also one would have expected to find some kind of injunction asked for and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
