9911796707
TMI Blog1920 (3) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant entered into an agreement with the Company for a first charge, to the extent of ₹ 10,000, on all uncalled share capital; he advanced ₹ 5,000, on the same day and the balance was paid on the 11th January, 1916. The mortgage instrument, which was executed by the Company in favour of the appellant on the 21st March 1916, referred specifically to thirty ordinary shares of ₹ 1,000 each, six ordinary shares, class 'A', of ₹ 500 each, and twenty-seven preference shares of Ra. 100. It is not disputed that the six ordinary shares specified in the schedule to the document are those that belonged to the respondent; consequently, there can be no doubt that the appellant had a specific charge on the six sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the indisputable facts of the case, the application should have been refused on the merits. In our opinion, these contentions are well founded. 4. It is now well settled that, although persons are not entitled to an order ex debito justices, the jurisdiction under Section 38 is unlimited, with a discretion in the Court in the circumstances of each case. In support of this proposition, reference may be made to the decisions in Kimberley North Block Diamond Co. In re, Wernher, Ex parte (1839) 59 L.T. 579 Ruby Consolidated Mining Co. In re, Asksw's case (1874) 18 L.J. Ch. 633 : 9 Ch. 631 : 31 L.T. 55 : 21 W.R. 883, Sussex. Brick Co. Ltd., In re (1904) 1 Ch. 598 : 73 L.J. Ch. 303 : 90 L.T. 426 : 52 W.R. 371 : 11 Manson 63 and Gresham ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s narrow interpretation of the section. The Legislature obviously intended that the Court should have the widest possible power to determine, in its discretion, questions which may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for decision before an order for rectification is made or refused. In the case before us, the appellant was manifestly entitled to intervene to oppose the application made by the respondent. He is vitally interested in these proceedings and his position might be seriously prejudiced by an order for rectification made behind his back. There is no conceivable reason why the respondent should be allowed to obtain an ex parte order, and the appellant should be driven to fight him in a suit brought for the purpose. 5. We ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
