9911796707
TMI Blog1924 (12) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacturing Company. The purchase was made in the name of a person named Girdharlal Dalpatram. This Girdharlal was the nephew of a woman called Bal Gulab, who is said to have been under the protection of Aohnratlal. In the year 1883 a controversy arose between Acharatlal and Girdharlal as to the real ownership of the 48 ₹ 1,000 shares and the 48 ₹ 500 sub-shares. Acharatlal alleged that Girdharlal was only his benamidar and that in fact he was the real beneficial owner of the said shares. The contest was settled between Acharatlal and Girdharlal on July 28, 1883. On that date an agreement was entered into by which it was agreed the; 24 shares of ₹ 1000 each and 24 sub-shares of ₹ 500 each wore to be transferred to Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the effect that its capital should be increased by the issue of 350 shares of ₹ 1,000 and 350 sub-shares of Its. 500, to be called "B" shares. And it was provided that those of the present shareholders who had a whole share of Its. 1,000 should be given one whole share of ₹ 1,000 of the "B" capital, and similarly with regard to the sub-share The second resolution provided :- That if in respect of these shares, a call be required to he made, the same be made in this manner that a call of half of the amount of the call which would be made in respect of a whole share, is made in the case of a half share of ₹ 500. 5. The third resolution was as follows :- That until all the calls in respect of the ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the old arrangement. They appear also to have received the "B" shares which were issued under the resolutions adopted in September 1886, by the directors of the company, 8. It is unnecessary to refer to certain other arrangements which were entered into between Girdharlal and Bai Gulab and the trustees as they do not bear directly on the present controversy. 9. Girdharlal died in 1892. The plaintiff in the suit before the High Court, who is the present respondent, is his daughter and heiress. She brought a suit in 1913 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad against the five trustees of Achratlal's will including Bai Gulab, for the redemption of the pledged shares "together with all the issues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd on July 18, 1918. His case is that he was by virtue of Bai Gulab's right entitled to the "B " shares as representing dividends to which she was entitled in her lifetime. 14. On this state of facts two questions arose for determination in the Courts in India. First, whether the plaintiff was entitled to proceed under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or whether she was bound to bring a separate action for the relief she was seeking. Secondly, whether the "B" shares which were held by the trustees were in fact the " Bachan " of the original shares called " A " shares. Both the Subordinate Judge and the High Court have held that the plaintiff was entitled to proceed under section 47 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the claim. The object of the proceeding is to have this question determined upon considerations which necessarily are connected with the original case. In that view the application appears to their lordships to be fully competent under section 47. The main question, however, remains, viz., whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the " B " shares. It has been objected that in the present proceedings the rights of Bai Gulab cannot be properly adjudicated. In their lordships' opinion any declaration made in there proceedings cannot affect the right (if any) of Bai Gulab to the shares in dispute. It is quite competent for her personal representative, she having died, to bring an action for the ascertainment of her rights. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- It is clear that the old shaves carried with them the right to the allotment of the new shares. For instance, it is difficult to hold that if the shares had not been mortgaged and transferred to Aohratlal and had continued in the name of Girdharlal, the now shares could have been or should have been issued to Achratlal as part of the profits of the old shares, and it is not suggest 1 on behalf of the defendants that in respect of the remaining 19 shares or such of them as continued in the name of Giirdburlal, the trustees of Achratlal have or could have claimed the sliuroa of the now capital ' B ' issued to Girdharlal as part of the dividends which wore claimable by them under the settlement. The right to be allotted the now sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
