SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. M. HELAT and C. A. VAIDIALINGAM JJ.
RAM AUTAR JALAN
Versus
COAL PRODUCTS P. LTD.
December 20, 1968.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1412 AND 1413 OF 1968.
Advocates appeared
Sarjoo Prasad, Senior Advocate (K. L. Mehta and S. K. Mehta, Advocates of K. L. Mehta and Co., with him), for the appellant. C. K. Daphtary and A. K. Sen, Senior Advocates (B. K. Bachawar and G. L. Sanghi, Advocates, and O. C. Mathur and J. B. Dadachanji, Advocates of J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with them), for the respondent.
Mines Act - Section 76 - Indian Companies Act, 1913 - Section 164 – Shares - Managing director of company - Refusing to grant a certificate for leave - Entitled of - Respondent company was incorporated under Act, 1913 - Registered office of company is at Victory Colliery Authorised capital of company is Rs. 20,00,000 divided into 2,00,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each, of which Rs. 15,10,000 is stated to have been fully paid and subscribed - Company owned four collieries, compendiously known as Victory Collieries - Kishorilal was appointed managing agent but from about December 26, 1950, company ceased to appoint managing agents – Thereafter Kishorilal was appointed managing director of company – On or about March 1, 1952, Jagan Mohan Goenka, brother of Kishorilal, ceased to be a director and also a shareholder as he had transferred his shares - Held, Court not inclined to accept contentions of Mr. Sarjoo Prasad - Learned trial judge has not directly considered question, having due regard to share registers and other documents produced by company, whether plaintiff cannot be considered to have prima facie established that defendant is not a shareholder of company and that he has not been validly appointed as a director of company - When whole question was whether defendant was in law entitled to function as a director, learned trial judge, instead of considering this important aspect, has given more weight to fact that defendant has been de facto functioning as a director - Court agree with conclusions arrived at at this stage, by appellate Bench as court satisfied that a correct approach has been made by it for considering matters arising at interlocutory stage of proceedings - Civil Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
VAIDIALINGAM J.-These appeals, by the defendant in the suit concerned arise by special leave, out of the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated March 1, 1968, and March 25, 1968, respectively. Civil Appeal No. 1412 of 1968 is directed against the order of the Division Bench in Appeal No. 196 of 1967. Civil Appeal No. 1413 of 1968 is directed against the order of the said Division Bench refusing to grant a certificate for leave to appeal to this court against the decision in Appeal No. 196 of 1967. The High Court refused to grant the certificate on the ground that the order dated March 1, 1968, in Appeal No. 196 of 1967 is not a final order and hence the party is not entitled to the grant of a certificate.
The short facts leading up to Civil Appeal No. 1412 of 1968 may he stated. The respondent company was incorporated in or about August 25, 1945, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The registered office of the company is at Victory Colliery, in West Bengal. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 20,00,000 divided into 2,00,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each, of which Rs. 15,10,000 is stated to have been fully paid and subscribed. The company owned four collieries, compendiously known as Victory Collieries. About September 2, 1945, Kishorilal was appointed managing agent but from about December 26, 1950, the company ceased to appoint managing agents. Thereafter, Kishorilal was appointed the managing director of the company. On or about March 1, 1952, Jagan Mohan Goenka, brother of Kishorilal, ceased to be a director and also a shareholder as he had transferred his shares. When Jagan Mohan Goenka ceased to be a director, his wife, Bhagwati Debi, became a director. In or about 1952 the management of the collieries was divided between two groups, which, for the sake of convenience, may be called the G. L. group and the M. J. group. Since about October, 1953, the Jagan Mohan group has been in the management of the G. L. group and Kishorilal s group has been in management of the M. J. group. We have already mentioned that Bhagwati Debi is the wife of Jagan Mohan Goenka. They have two sons, Uma Shankar Goenka and Hari Shankar Goenka. Kishori Lal s wife is Parameshwari Debi and their two sons are Shiv Rattan Goenka and Nav Rattan Goenka. On June 20, 1966, Hari Shankar Goenka filed an application for winding up of the company and an interlocutory order was made by Mitra J. on June 27, 1966.
The learned judge had directed by that order that " the account in the Bank of India shall be operated by Kishorilal Goenka and Nav Rattan Goenka as it is being done now ; the account in the United Commercial Bank Ltd. shall be operated by Ram Autar Jalan in the same manner as itis now being done". Ram Autar Jalan, mentioned in this order, it may be stated, is the appellant before us. The respondent, on coming to know that the appellant was acting as a director of the company, asked for information, on or about June 28, 1966, from the United Commercial Bank as to how Ram Autar Jalan was operating the bank account on behalf of the company. The bank, by its letter dated September 12, 1966, ultimately furnished to the respondent a copy of an extract of the resolution of the company dated August 31, 1964, which had been furnished to them and on the basis of which Ram Autar Jalan was operating the bank accounts.
The respondent herein instituted, on the Original side of the High Court of Calcutta, on September 12, 1966, Suit No. 1871 of 1966. The defendant to the action is Ram Autar Jalan, the appellant before us. The respondent-company, after setting out the particulars about the incorporation of the company, its authorised capital, etc., referred to certified copies of the returns filed by the company with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, West Bengal, from which the names of the shareholders and the names and particulars of the directors of the company will appear. According to the plaintiff, since the l
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.