SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th January 1965
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Shanti Prasad Jain (In all the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
Kalinga Tubes Ltd. etc. (In all the Appeals), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 734 to 747 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (M /s- S. Roy Chowdhry, M. L. Jhunjhunwala, S. Murty and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates, with him), for Appellant (in all the Appeals),
M/s. M. C. Setalvad, A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and Ranadeb Chaudhuri, Senior Advocates (Mr. M. K, Banerjee, Advocate and M/s..J.B. Dadachanji. O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Respondent No, 1.
Mr, Ranadeb Chaudhuri, Senior Advocate (Messrs J. B. Dadachanji and Co., Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (Mr. B. Dutta, Advocate and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 3.
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (M/s-.J. B. Dadachanji and Co., Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 4.
Mr. Sachin Chaudhury, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s, Rajinder Narain and Co., with him), for Respondents Nos. 9, 10 and 12. 1537
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney General for India (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Respondent No. 13.
M/s. Sachin Choudhury and B. Sen, Senior Advocates (Mr. Dipak Dutta Choudhury, Advocate, with them), for Respondent No. 14.
Mr. Niren De, Addl. Solicitor General of India (M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., Advocates, with him), for Respondent No, 15.
Mr. S. V. Gupte, Solicitor General of India (M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., Advocates, with him), for Respondent No, 16.
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. :- These fourteen appeals on certificates granted by the High Court of Orissa raise common questions of law and fact and will be dealt with together. They are a consequence of a fight between two groups of business magnates for the control of Messrs. Kalinga Tubes Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company). They arise out of an application under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Indian Companies Act, No. 1 of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made by the appellant in the High Court. Most of the facts are not seriously in dispute and it is necessary to set them out in detail in order to decide the main point raised on behalf of the appellant, namely, that the affairs of the Company were being conducted in a manner oppressive to him and his group of members.
2. The Company was floated as a private limited company on December 1, 1950 with an authorised capital of Rs. 25 lacs. Originally, the shares were held by two groups of share-holders equally, except a few shares. These groups of share-holders may for our purposes be taken to be represented by Patnaik and Loganathan. The Company raised a sum of Rs. 36 lacs by the issue of two series of debentures which were guaranteed by the Government of Orissa between 1952 to 1954. In 1954, the appellant was approached by Dr. Mohanty, then Secretary to Government of Orissa (Industries Department) which was naturally interested in the Company having guaranteed debentures to the tune of Rs. 36 lacs, for helping the Company which was in financial and administrative difficulties. The appellant was requested to help the Company by providing finance and by arranging loans from banks and other sources and further by providing the necessary administrative guidance. The appellant agreed to do so and consequently on July 27, 1954, an agreement was entered into between the appellant, and Patnaik and Loganathan. To this agreement, the Company was not a party. We shall refer in detail to the various terms of the agreement later. In brief, however, the agreement provided that the appellant would be allotted shares in the Company equal to those held by Patnaik and Loganathan after increasing the share capital of the Company. Thus the Company would have three groups of share-holders represented by the appellant, Patnaik and Loganathan holding equal number of shares, besides a French company and one Rath, who between themselves held shares worth Rs. 4 lacs. These share-holders, however, were not party to the agreement. It was also provided that these three groups of share-holders would have equal number of representatives on the Board of Directors of the Company, namely, two each for the time being. The appellant also undertook to arrange for cash credit facilities to the limit of Rs. 50 locs on the security of raw materials and finished goods of the Company. And finally, the appellant Jain was to be the chairman of the Company. This agreement was followed by certain resolutions passed by the Company on August 16, 1954 by which some of the terms of the agreement were substantially carried out, the authorised capital was increased to rupees one crore (though it was issued later in instalments), and the appellant was made the chairman of the Company. It may, however, be noted that the resolutions did not refer to the agreement in terms and no change was made in the Articles of Association of the Company to bring them in conformity, with all the terms of the agreement. In January 1955, Narayanswami who had been appointed Managing Director resigned and Patnaik was appointed the Managing Director. In April 1955, the Company started production. Sometime thereafter the share capital was further subscribed up to Rs. 61 lacs and the three groups, namely, the appellant Jain, Patnaik and Loganathan held one-third of the shares leaving out shares held by the French company. Mr. Rath had sold his shares numbering 250 and these shares were equally divided between the three groups and
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.