Skip to content


Joginder Singh Vs. Basawa Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberRegular Second Appeal No. 1221 of 1973
Judge
Reported in[1985]58CompCas843(P& H)
ActsCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 155
AppellantJoginder Singh
RespondentBasawa Singh and anr.
Appellant Advocate D.N. Awasthy, Sr. Adv. and; Ranjit Kumar Pachnanda, Adv.
Respondent Advocate J.S. Narang, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - it was further alleged that the company in collusion with the appellant failed to give effect to the said transfer in favour of the plaintiff in the registers of the company, with the result that the plaintiff was not paid any dividend on those shares, in spite of repeated demands......for a declaration against the appellant and the company to the effect that he was the owner, by transfer, of shares nos. 424 to 443 and 3859 to 3868 as described above. a further prayer for the issuance of a permanent injunction to the company to recognise the rights of the plaintiff and to bring his name as a shareholder in the company's registers and to pay all dividends accruing in respect of the said shares to the plaintiff has been made.2. the suit was contested by the defendants on several grounds.3. on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (i) whether civil court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? opd (ii) whether the suit in the present form does not lie opd (iii) whether the transfer deed was not in accordance with the rulesand regulations of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Prem Chand Jain, J.

1. The facts of this case may briefly be stated thus:

Joginder Singh, appellant, had shares Nos. 424 to 443 and 3859 to 3868 of M/s. Onkar Bus Service Ltd., Jullundur, respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), as entered in Share Certificate No. 41 L.F. No. 50, dated October 30, 1945, and No. 41, L. F. No. 339, dated December 19, 1951, respectively. According to the plaintiff, the appellant transferred the aforesaid shares to him and executed a transfer deed for this purpose. The transfer deed was handed over to the company for giving effect to the transfer of the aforesaid shares in the name of the plaintiff-respondent. It was further alleged that the company in collusion with the appellant failed to give effect to the said transfer in favour of the plaintiff in the registers of the company, with the result that the plaintiff was not paid any dividend on those shares, in spite of repeated demands. With the above allegations, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for a declaration against the appellant and the company to the effect that he was the owner, by transfer, of shares Nos. 424 to 443 and 3859 to 3868 as described above. A further prayer for the issuance of a permanent injunction to the company to recognise the rights of the plaintiff and to bring his name as a shareholder in the company's registers and to pay all dividends accruing in respect of the said shares to the plaintiff has been made.

2. The suit was contested by the defendants on several grounds.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(i) Whether civil court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD

(ii) Whether the suit in the present form does not lie OPD

(iii) Whether the transfer deed was not in accordance with the rulesand regulations of the company If so, its effect OPD.

(iv) Whether there was compromise between the plaintiff anddefendant No. 2 as alleged in para 5 of the W. S. If so, its effect? OPD

(v) Whether the suit has been properly valued for purposes of courtfee and jurisdiction OPD.

(vi) Relief.

4. The main and the only issue with which we are concerned in the present appeal is issue No. 1 which relates to the jurisdiction of the civil court.

5. What was sought to be argued by Mr. Ranjit Pachnanda, learned counsel for the appellant, was that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Sections 111 and 155 of the Companies Act. On the other hand, Shri J. S. Narang, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the remedy provided under the aforesaid provisions of the Act was a summary remedy and that the civil court's jurisdiction was not excluded.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and find that the question whether the civil court's jurisdiction to try the suit is barred in view of the provisions of Sections 111 and 155 of the Act is of considerable importance and deserves to be decided by a larger Bench. There is no direct authority on this question of this court. Consequently, I direct that the papers of this case be laid before the learned Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench.

[The matter then came up before their Lordships S. S. SANDHAWALIA C.J. and PREM CHAND JAIN J.]


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //