SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJI., AND B.C. RAY, J.
M/s. World Wide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and another, Appellants
Versus
Mrs. Margarat T. Desor and others, Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5186 of 1989, (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11225 of 1989), D -19- 12-1989.
Constitution of India – Article , 22 , 17 , 32 , 25 , 28 , 27 , 26 , 136 - English Companies Act, 1948 - Sections 26 , 399 , 397 , 114 , 41 , 109 , 210 , 398 and 433 - Victorian Companies Act, 1938 - Electric Supply - This is an appeal from judgment and order of Division Bench of High Court of Delhi, - Appellant World Wide Agencies Ltd - is a private limited company incorporated under provisions of Indian Companies Act, to which Table A of Schedule 1 to Act applies, as stipulated under Articles of Association of company - As per memorandum of association appellant company was carrying on business of travel agents at G-40, Connaught Circus, New Delhi - authorised share capital of company was to tune of Rs - 5 lakhs divided into 5000 equity shares of Rs - 100 each - paid up capital as per last annual return filed by company with Registrar of Companies, was Rs - 2,01,000/- - company had at all relevant times 7 shareholders and total number of shares subscribed and paid up was 2010 shares – Held , Second question was whether a combined petition was maintainable - In view of observations of this Court in Shanti Prasad Jain v - Kalinga Tubes and reasoning of Bombay High Court in Bilasrai Joharmal v - Akola Electric Supply Co - Pvt - Ltd -, 28 Corn Cas 549, Court are of opinion that averments which a petitioner would have to make to invoke jurisdiction are not destructive of averments which are required to be made in a case for winding up Act on just and equitable ground, though they may appear to be contradictory - As Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 7, at p - 604-605, discusses that prayer must be made stating that affairs are such which fulfil requirement of winding up but to wind up company would unfairly prejudice that part of members, but otherwise facts would justify making of a winding up order on ground that it was just and equitable that company should be wound up, Court may, with a view to bringing to an end matters complained of, make such order as it thinks fit, whether for regulating conduct of companys affairs in future or otherwise - Court are of opinion that averments which a petitioner would have to make to invoke jurisdiction are not destructive of averments which are required to be made in a case for winding up just and equitable ground, though they may appear to be rather conflicting if not contradictory - Court are in agreement with High Court that petition must proceed up to certain stage which is common to both winding up and though there may be some difference in procedure to be adopted, it is not such which is irreconcilable and cannot simultaneously be gone into - Indeed these are made in manner indicated before - It has to be borne in mind that a discretion is conferred on Court and it is only when Court is satisfied that facts justify making of a winding up order on ground that it is just and equitable that company should be wound up, but if Court is further of opinion that it would be a remedy worse than disease, then Court can examine whether alternative relief by way of a direction can be granted - This is a well accepted remedy exercised by Courts - Court are, therefore, of opinion that High Court was right in view that a composite petition of Act is maintainable - Appeal dismissed
Judgment
SABYASACH1 MUKHARJI, C.J.I. :- Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, dated 31st August, 1989 (reported in (1989) 3 Delhi Lawyer 293). The appellant No. 1 M/ s World Wide Agencies (P) Ltd. is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to which Table A of Schedule 1 to the Act applies, as stipulated under the Articles of Association of the company. As per the memorandum of association the appellant company was carrying on the business of travel agents at G-40, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The authorised share capital of the company was to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs divided into 5000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. The paid up capital as per the last annual return filed by the company with the Registrar of Companies, was Rs. 2,01,000/-. The company had at all relevant times 7 shareholders and the total number of shares subscribed and paid up was 2010 shares.
3. The appellant No. 2 Mrs. Amrit Kaur Singh, at all relevant times, was a shareholder holding 545 fully paid up shares in the share capital of the company, and was also the whole-time working Director of the Company, holding the office from 1974 onwards. Late Mr. G. K. Desor was a British national. He held 600 shares in the said company, acquired by him from the Ex-Managing Director Mr. Amrik Singh Saluja and his family. The respondents Nos.2 & 3 to this appeal are children of late Mr. S. K. Desor who died on 5th March, 1985. As per the certified copy of the annual return made up to 15th February, 1984 the shareholders of appellant No. 1 (company) were as follows:-
Mr. S.K. Desor 600 shares
Mrs. Amrit Kaur Singh 545 shares
Mr. Yash Pal Malhotra 250 shares
Mrs. Amrit Gupta 200 shares
Mrs. Savitri Devi Kohli 5 shares
Mr. A.S. Saluja 5 shares
Mr. Balwant Singh 405 shares
2010 shares
4. A petition under Ss. 397 & 398 of the Act and in the alternative for winding up of the company was filed by the respondents on 25th March, 1985, wherein it was alleged that on 12th March, 1985 respondent No. 1, being the widow of late Mr. S. K. Desor, applied as a legal heir of late S. K. Desor to the Board of Director of the appellant-company for transmission of 350 shares held by her late husband. It is stated that the shares of Yash Pal Malhotra had been acquired by late Mr. S. K. Desor; and that respondent No. 1 led an affidavit of her daughter Ms. Kim Paul, relinquishing her claim to the shares of her late father. The Board of Directors resolved that they had no objection to transmission of the shares held by Mr. S. K. Desor but the actual transmission would take place on respondent No. 1s obtaining Reserve Bank of Indias permission and the succession certificate. The respondent No. 1s application for allotment of 5 shares as per her letter of the same date was allowed by the Board of Directors, and it was resolved that in view of allotment of these shares, her interest in the shares of her late husband, she be appointed as a Director of the Company, subject to Reserve Bank of Indias permission.
5. It is stated in the judgment under appeal that at the said meeting of the Board of Directors, they recorded their deed appreciation for the services rendered by late Mr. S. K. Desor as Managing Director-cum-Chairman of the company, and mourned his passing away. The quorum of the said meeting was two - Mrs. Amrit Gupta and Mrs. Savitri Devi Kohli. It is recorded in the judgment under appeal that on 23rd March, 1985 the Board of Directors held another meeting. The minutes of the meeting of 12th March, 1985 were confirmed by the two above-mentioned Directors. The third Director, Mrs. Amrit K. Singh, however, objected as she stated that she had not been informed of the last meeting. Various averments had been made in the petition with regard to oppression and removal of certain valuables by Mrs. Amrit K. Singh and illegal operation of the b
not considered : Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corpn. Ltd. v. A. Mageshwara Rao
relied on : Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Limited
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.