LexARJUN PRASAD versus SHANTILAL SHANKARLAL SHAH AND OTHERS (AND CONNECTED APPEAL)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
IHI s1.,, of Oriu• •• B/,upnidra Kumor Bou IHI 402 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. qrdinan:e arc, in our opinion, very similar to the rights with which the court was dealing in the case of Steavenson and they must be held to endure and last even after the expiry of the Ordinan~e. The Ordinance has in terms provided that the Order of Court declaring the elections to the Cuttack Muni· cipality t-0 be invalid shall be deemed to be and always to havo been of no legal effect whatever and that the sa.id elections are thereby validated. That being so, the said elections must be deemed to have been validly held under the Aot and the. life of the newly elected Municipality would be governed by the relevant provisions of the Act and would not come to an end as soon as the Ordinance expires. Therefore, we do not think that the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Chetty against the compe· tence of the appeals can be upheld. The result is that tho appeals are allowed, the Order passed by the High Court is set. aside, and the Writ Petition filed by Mr. Bose is di8missed with costs throughout. Appeals allowed. ARJUN PRASAD v. SHANTILAL SHANKARLAL SHAH AND OTHERS (AND CONNOOI'ED APPEAL) (K.C. DAS G(T}'TA AND RAOHUBAR D~Y.AL, JJ:l om n -If caa be preaen.t "in ptraon in mtth~- M .c pa Y ,.,~ • Per- a.....mai<d to rtpruent cr•d1tor eet"'g of creatwr - _,. ,,,,-- 1·a· ,r •· n -l'eraon t'Oli11!/ on bt.11111/ of compally-Va' "11 o, ~~ come pa y I ~" • order-If 4~nl liu to Jligh Courl-lnd1a" - ompany. """' • ,,,,..... ,. " IC'" . A t 1"13 (7 o' 1913' •• 3 ld;>-V<,..,.a .,.,.. .. Oompan1u r,, . ., 'J ., • 1 I JO Ar.t, 1897 (10 of 1897), •· 3(42)-LeU.ra Paten'., c.. . S bs t to an order rr.ade for the wmdmg up of a u equen d' . , · h Co pany Judge made a 1tCCll' n aor acuon to company, tde m. iollll ofs. 153 of the Indian Companies l>C" taken un er provts 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 403 Act, 1913. At the meeting of the unsecured creditors of the company a resolution was pa8'ed by the creditors present, either in person or through proxy, by majority in number as well as three.fourths in value. At this meeting the appel· lant claiming to represent two of the creditor companies cast his votes on behalf of the said companies in support of the resolution. No objection wa• taken at the meeting to the validity of the votes by any of the creditors who opposed the resolution. When the m liter came up for orders before the Company Judge an objection was raised that the votes cast by the appellant on behalf of the two creditor companits were not valid, inasmuch ass. 153(2) of the Act requires that the creditors should be present either in pe~son or by proxy at the meeting and that, in the present case, the two creditor companies, being corporations, could not be considered to have been present at the meeting "in person". 1'he Company Judge overruled the objection on the grounds that it was raised at a late stage and that, in any case, the votes were valid because the appellant's attendance at the meeting amounted to the attendance of the companies "in person". On appeal, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court rejected the contention that no appeal Jay to the High Court from the order of the Company Judge but only to the Supreme Court and, on the merits, set aside hi! order. Held, that: (I) the.word "Court" ins. 153(7) of the Tndian Companies Act, 1913, meam the Court exercising original jurhdiction, and. therefore, an appeal from the order of the Company Judge lay to the High Court under cl. IO of the Letters Patent; (2) though under the General Clauses Act, 1897 a company is a "perso·nu so that whenever the word "pers~n" is used in any statute a company would be included there- under, unleiS there is some special provision by a law a company which is not a physical person cannot "be prese~t" at any place "in penon"; and (3) in the present case the votes cast by the appellant wcte not valid in law and it being admitted that if the votes were invalid th.e requisite majority of three-fourths in value requisite under s. 153(2) of the Indian Co.mpanies Act, 1913, would not be obtained and therefore no further action could be taken by the Court in the matter, the delay in raising the objection would not entitlo the Court to ignore the legal defect of the votes. CIVIL APPELLATE JumsnICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 201 an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.