SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1927 Supreme(Mad) 578

S.AYYANGAR
T. A. K. Mohideen Pichai Taraganar – Appellant
Versus
Tinnevelly Mills Co. Ltd. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.

1. Of considerable difficulty is the question raised and discussed in these appeals. It relates to the claim of the plaintiff-appellant to require the first defendant company, a company registered under the Companies Act to register in his name certain shares purchased by him at a sale held by Court in execution of a decree and subsequently confirmed.

2. We must take it for the purpose of these appeals that the company has refused to register and the first question that arises for determination in that connexion is whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek to enforce his rights by suit. The contention of the learned vakil for the respondents with regard to this matter was that the Indian Companies Act is really in the form of a complete code dealing with all the matters relating to companies and that, therefore, if such enactment has provided a special remedy for the claim in question, then it is open to the aggrieved party to seek to enforce the remedy only by such procedure and not by separate suit. The principle would undoubtedly appear to be that if the new enactment is such that certain new rights Unknown previously to law are created by the now st























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top