Judgement

Appeal (No. 94 of 1926) from a decree of the High Court in its appellate

Law Rep. 55 Ind. App. 274 ( 1927- 1928) Parashuram Dattaram Shamdasani v. Tata Industrial Bank 94

jurisdiction (July 22, 1924) from a decree of that Court in its original jurisdiction.

The suit was instituted by the appellants in the High Court in August, 1923, claiming various declarations substantially to the effect that a scheme of amalgamation between the Tata Industrial Bank, Ld., in liquidation and the Central Bank of India, Ld., was not binding upon them, and that certain resolutions of the former company in pursuance of that amalgamation and the liquidation of the former company were not duly passed and were invalid.

The suit was dismissed by Pratt J., whose judgment was affirmed on appeal by Shah A.C.J. and Fawcett J.

1928. Feb. 6, 7, 9, 10. The first appellant in person. Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Cecil Turner for the respondents.

May 8. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD BLANESBURGH. The Tata Industrial Bank, Ld., was in the year 1917 incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, for the purpose of carrying on the business of banking in all its branches. It had a nominal capital of 12 crores of rupees, divided into 1,600,000 shares of Rs.75 each. In July, 1923, 1,000,893 of its shares were in issue, and on each of them the sum of Rs.22.8 had been paid up, There was therefore an uncalled liability of Rs.52.8 on every issued share. In July, 1923, the first appellant was the holder of 100 of these 1,000,893 shares, and the second appellant was the holder of 5, The relatively trifling amount of these holdings constitutes a circumstance of relevance at many stages of this case.

It seems to be accepted on all hands that for some years prior to July, 1923, the Tata Bank had been losing ground. It is in evidence that its deposits had in two and a half years sunk from 12 crores to 3 ½ crores. Its industrial banking business had been so unprofitable that about a year before it had been given up, leaving the bank in possession of a considerable block of industrial securities largely depreciated and difficult to realize. There had been an agitation against the bank—partly patriotic—a bank built up with Indian money should be run by Indians—partly carried on by persons who had grievances, real or supposed, against the board. Amongst the disaffected was the first appellant, who, having been in the service of the bank, had had his employment terminated by the general manager without due cause, as he alleged, In consequence, so it was rightly or wrongly suggested, he adopted an attitude of hostility to the board. He had appeared at the general meeting of the shareholders on May 1, 1923, and having, as he complained, been then denied a hearing, he instituted, with his brother, the second appellant, a suit against the bank for redress on that score—a suit which had been dismissed by Pratt J. in June (see Parashuram Dattaram Shamdasani v. Tata Industrial Bank, Ld.) (( 1923)1. L.R. 47 B. 915.), in a judgment which gravely questioned the bona fides of the appellants in bringing it. It was stated in evidence that in July the bank was moribund that it would have had to close in a few months if something drastic had not been done to save the situation. This may be, probably was, an exaggeration. But public confidence in the bank had been, it would seem, weakened, if not destroyed. Some form of reorganization was necessary. So much seems to be conceded on all hands. The choice lay between liquidation, reconstruction and amalgamation. Here there was a difference of opinion. The first appellant in a long open letter to the shareholders, on July 14, 1923—a letter to which reference must again be made in another connection—advocated reconstruction, with liquidation as a second alternative. The views of the directors were not at first at one. But, after withdrawal from the board of two of them—embarrassed it would seem by divided interests