9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (5) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company. The secretary of the company issued on January 23, 1986, a notice for holding the 16th annual general meeting of the company on March 15, 1986, at its registered office. Shri Raghu Raj was appointed as the chairman of this annual general meeting of the company. Section 176 of the Companies Act, 1956, gives a right to the members of a company entitled to attend and vote at a meeting to cast their votes by proxy. Some members of the company executed two instruments of proxies each, appointing proxies which were duly lodged with the company. The proxies appointed under one set voted for Dr. Rajaram Jaipuria and his nominees. Proxies appointed by the same members under another set voted for Sri Mahendra Swarup and his nominees. The plaintiff raised objections to the proxies and submitted a letter to the chairman of the meeting in this regard. The objection was that the instruments of proxy by virtue of which the proxies voted in favour of Dr. Rajaram Jaipuria and his nominees were from all over India but had been signed and dated March 13, 1986. In other words, this dating was not done at the time of the execution of the proxies by the members but was done at the time of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... general meeting has by an order directed that the proxies lying with defendant No. 2 company should be seized and deposited in the said court and had appointed a commissioner to serve the order as well as to seize the proxies, and he had served the orders and had seized the proxies. The issues in the suit were framed on August 19, 1986. Issue No. 10 is whether the proxies in favour of Shri Rajaram Jaipuria and his nominees dated March 13, 1986, had been executed by the shareholders concerned on the same date, i.e. , March 13, 1986, and if not, whether the said proxies were invalid? This issue also covered the question whether the proxies bearing the later date would not prevail over a proxy bearing an earlier date. Issue No. 11 is whether the shareholders who had given proxies in favour of Dr. Rajaram Jaipuria and his nominees had also given proxies in favour of Shri Mahinder Swarup and his nominees, and if so, whether the proxies given in favour of Dr. Rajaram Jaipuria and his nominees would stand revoked on that ground? Issue No. 12 is whether some of the shareholders who had given proxies in favour of Dr. Rajaram Jaipuria and his nominees had revoked those proxies, and if so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal Side) Rules, 1967. The contention of the counsel was that a copy of only a judicial record could be granted in the manner prescribed by rule 1 of Chapter 5B of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court, Vol. V, as applicable to Delhi, to any person who is legally entitled to receive it. The submission was that the term "judicial record" or record used in those rules meant the record of the suit only and did not include in its ambit the record of the suit pending in the Ghaziabad court which had been summoned by this court and, therefore, copies of the documents, which were part of the case pending in the Ghaziabad court, could not be given. G.C. Jain J., in the order under appeal, observed that there may be merits in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. However, he did not like to go into details but expressed the opinion that the order made by the learned Registrar does not affect the right of the appellant and that, moreover, to prove his case, the plaintiff was required to produce the copies of the instant proxies. He did not find any justification for interference with the order of the Registrar and dismissed the appeal. Shri C.M. Oberoi, le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted on merits. Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, provides that where a single judge of the High Court of Delhi exercises ordinary civil jurisdiction conferred by sub-section (2) of section 5 on that court, an appeal shall lie from the judgment of the single judge to a Division Bench of that High Court. Under section 5, jurisdiction vested in the High Court of Delhi in respect of the territories for the time being included in the Union Territory of Delhi for all such original, appellate and other jurisdictions, as under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in respect of the said territories by the High Court of Punjab. Under sub-section (2), notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the High Court of Delhi is also vested, in respect of the said territories, with ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeds rupees one lakh. The question of construction of section 10(1) read with section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act was decided by a Full Bench of this court in University of Delhi v. Hafiz Mohd. Said, AIR 1972 Delhi 102. The question arose as to what interpretation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the final judgment." In Shah Babu Lal's case, AIR 1981 SC 1786, it was expressed that a judgment can be of three kinds, a final judgment, a preliminary judgment and intermediary or interlocutory judgment. The word "judgment" has undoubtedly a concept of finality in a broader and not a narrower sense. In respect of intermediary or interlocutory judgment, it was expressed (at pages 1815 and 1816): "Most of the interlocutory orders which contain the quality of finality are clearly specified in clauses ( a ) to ( w ) of Order 43, rule 1, and have already been held by us to be judgments within the meaning of the Letters Patent and, therefore, appealable. There may also be interlocutory orders which are not covered by Order 43, rule 1, but which also possess the characteristics and trappings of finality in that, the orders may adversely affect a valuable right of the party or decide an important aspect of the trial in an ancillary proceeding. Before such an order can be a judgment, the adverse effect on the party concerned must be direct and immediate rather than indirect or remote. For instance, where the trial judge in a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch were disallowed, were valid. The proxies are thus material and relevant documents for the purpose of the disposal of the suit. The learned single judge in the order under appeal had upheld the order made by the Registrar for supply of certified copies as per rules and expressed that it does not affect the right of the appellant. In our view, he is perfectly justified in saying so. The learned single judge had by an ex parte order made on April 5, 1986, directed the defendants to deposit the proxies in court on April 7, 1986, and on the next date, i.e., April 7, 1986, directed in the presence of counsel for the parties that the order of deposit of proxies be complied with by April 9, 1986. The appellant moved an application dated April 9, 1986, under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being I.A. No. 2351 of 1986, in which it was stated that the registered office of the company is at Ghaziabad where the proxies and records have been kept and where the annual general meeting had taken place and that the secretary of defendant-No. 2 company, Shri Anil Jhala, had gone to Ghaziabad that morning with a view to collect proxies in order to have the same deposited in this cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Registrar and upheld by the learned single judge under orders in appeal makes no decision affecting the merits of the suit. It does not affect any vital or valuable right of the appellant except the procedural irregularity, if any, of issuing certified copies of documents contained in the summoned record of the suit in which the plaintiff is not a party. The learned single judge had exercised the power and discretion under Order XIII, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for summoning the records from the Ghaziabad court. The plaintiff had shown in the application supported by an affidavit for calling for the record that those documents are material and he had also shown that he could not obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or such portion thereof and that the production of the original record is necessary for the purposes of justice. The appellant has no grievance against that order and it has become final. The production of the record has been found necessary for the purposes of justice. The plaintiff could not obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record from the Ghaziabad court. At the trial, the proxies will be scrutinised and referred to in oral evidence bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
