9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Baroda Liquidation Court, Enforcement of call order, Evidence of notice for call order, Liability of the defendant
In the judgment delivered by Addison, J., the case involved the dismissal of a suit on the grounds that the company in liquidation failed to prove notice was given to the defendant for the call order, following the precedent of Edulji Burjorji v. Manekji Sorabji. The lower Appellate Court and a single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeals. The appeal under the Letters Patent was preferred against the decision of the single Judge. The main contention was whether the defendant, being a shareholder in a company registered in Baroda, was subject to the jurisdiction of the Baroda Court, which was refuted based on legal precedents such as Copin v. Adamson and Emanuel v. Symon. It was established that the defendant did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Baroda Liquidation Court, and being a resident of British India, the call order against him was deemed to be made without jurisdiction and unenforceable in British India. The judgment emphasized that the Liquidator needed to prove all the necessary facts to establish the liability of the defendant. It was noted that there was no evidence on record to prove the necessity and justification of the call of Rs. 20 per share as stated in the call order. Merely issuing a call order was insufficient to prove the liability of the defendant. The court highlighted the importance of establishing the justification for the call order to succeed in the action. As a result, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs, indicating the necessity for the plaintiff to provide adequate proof to establish the defendant's liability in the case.
|
