High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S.P. Bhargava, J.
Onama Glass Works Ltd.
Versus
Ram Harak Panday
Civil Revn. 47 of 1964 Of
Decided On : Oct 13,1964
(2) Specific Relief Act 1877, - S.9 - orders under-revision when lies Civil P.C., 1908 –S.115.
Interference in a particular case under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, would depend on the circumstances of that case If the case is disposed of on an obvious misapprehension as to the legal position, the decision of the lower Court may be interfered with even in a revision. But, ordinarily the High Court will not interfere in revision with an order under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act as there is the remedy by way of suit 22 MPLC 451, ILR 19t8 Nag. 422 & AIR 1934 Mad. 558 relied on. [Para 5
(3) Specific Relief Act 1887, - S.9 - possession without consent - what is 'consent' in case of a limited company - consent given by the Board of Directors in consent-validity of the transaction not material - Companies Act, 1956 Ss.291 & 293.
(4) Companies Act, 1956 - S.291 & 293 – possession given with the consent of Directors - is consent of the Company - validity of transaction depending on a resolution of the General Meeting -Consent is effectual - Specific -Relief Act, 1887 –S.9. Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is not directly concerned with the legality of the transaction under which the possession is taken by the defendants. The section becomes applicable only when the plaintiff was dispossessed 'without his consent'. [Para 8
If it could be held on facts that possession was taken by the defendants with the consent of such living persons who represented the directing mind and will of the company and who were the very ego and personality of the Corporation, it will follow that the possession was taken with the consent of the company and it will matter not that the transaction under which the possession was taken was really in excess of their powers and invalid. [Para 10
The consent in a general meeting as required by section 293 of the Companies Act may be necessary for making the transaction valid but for purposes of section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, where the leaglity of the transaction is not the deciding factor, the question of consent must be answered on the general principles referred to above. If those principles were applied, the Board of Directors and the General Manager of the plaintiff-Company were such persons whom the affairs of the Company were entrusted. They or anyone of them might have-acted in the mistaken exercise of their powers but they must be held to have always represented the directing mind and will of the Company. The possession taken with their consent will be possession taken with the consent of the Company for the, purposes of section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, though it was taken under an invalid transaction. [Para 11
( 1. ) THE applicant, Shree Onama Glass Works, Ltd. , Gondia, is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered head office at Gondia, district Bhandara, in the State of Maharashtra. It owns a Glass factory and Refractory Works consisting of lands with the structures thereon situate in Jabalpur. The details have been shown in the map filed with the plaint. It also holds a mining lease for a fire clay mine in mouza Garha, Khasra number of which has been stated in the Schedule annexed to the plaint. It holds some other property also with which we are not concerned in the present case. The applicant was in actual possession of the aforesaid properties till 19-1-1962. On that day, the non- applicants got possession of the aforesaid properties through Shri A. V. Pandit, General Manager of the applicant. The applicant instituted a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the aforesaid properties in the Court of the 1st Additional District Judge. Jabalpur, alleging that it was dispossessed without its consent and otherwise than in due course of law.
( 2. ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the applicant got possession of the mine and, therefore, it confined its claim to the possession of the factory and refractory works, situate at Jabalpur. The affairs of the plaintiff-applicant, which is a public limited company, are managed by a Board of Directors. At the relevant time, the General Manager of the Company was Shri A. V. Pandit. The Company became indebted to the Government as also to some private individuals. The second defendant, Dr. T. B. Sarvate and the third defendant, R. G. Oka, were amongst its creditors. Dr. Sarvate was a Director of the applicant for several years. He tendered his resignation on 15-5-1962. To liquidate the debts of the applicant, the first and third non-applicants (defendants) proposed for a transfer of the factory and the refractory works at Jabalpur and for the transfer of the lease-hold rights in the mine. The matter was discussed in a meeting of the Board of Directors of the applicant on 7-10-1961, vide Resolution (Ex. P-2) and later on 3-12-1961. , vide Resolution (Ex. P-3 ). In these meetings, the proposed transfer of the aforesaid properties of the applicant was approved and on 3-12-1961, the Board of Directors resolved that inquiry be made from the State Government as to whether it would permit the transfer by lease of the factory and refractory works and the lease-hold rights in the mine. It was also resolved that a meeting of the general body of share-holders be convened after receipt of communication from the Government and that in the meanwhile, legal opinion in respect of the proposed transfer be also obtained.
( 3. ) THE defendants (non-applicants) pleaded that on 16-1-1962, the General Manager of the applicant-Company, Shri A. V. Pandit came to Jabalpur with a circulating Resolution, dated 12-1-1962 of the Directors of the applicant which authorised him to finally settle the terms and conditions of transfer of the factory at Jabalpur and the said mine in favour of the defendants and to put the defendants in possession of the property. It was also urged by the defendants that a meeting of the three defendants and Shri Pandit took place on 18-1-1962 when terms and conditions of the transfer were finally settled between them. Thereafter, the circulating Resolution (Ex. P-4-A) was drafted by Shri Pandit which contained all the conditions which were settled between him and the defendants. According to Ex. P-4-A, the transfer of the Jabalpur factory and the mine was to be in favour of a private limited company named and styled as onama Industries Private Limited. The defendants and the applicant-Company were to be the share-holders and the charge of the Jabalpur factory with finished and unfinished goods and the mine was to be handed over to the defendants as representing the Onama Industries Private Limited on 19-1-
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.