9911796707
TMI Blog1942 (4) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficate in respect of shares held by him in the Parli Tile Works, Limited. The certificate was not accompanied by a deed transferring the shares to the appellant, but he claims that notwithstanding this there was a valid pledge of the shares. The suit was contested by the fourth defendant, who is the first respondent in this appeal. On a date subsequent to the deposit of the share certificate with the appellant the first respondent attached the shares by a prohibitory order issued under Order 21, Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He denied that a valid pledge of the shares was created in favour of the appellant and maintained that he himself had obtained title to the shares by reason of the attachment and subsequent sale. 2. The Dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore an equitable mortgage of movable property could not be effected outside the towns specified in the Transfer of Property Act. It is not necessary for the Court to discuss this question because Mr. Kuttikrishna Menon, on behalf of the appellant, has been content to confine his case to the plea of pledge. 4. Now let us see what is implied by the expression 'pledge'. In Hallday v. Holgate (1868) L.R. 3 Exeh. Cas 299, Willes, J., placed a pledge between a simple lien and a mortgage. He pointed out that in the case of a lien there is no transfer of interest, but in the case of a mortgage the property passes. In the case of a pledge a deposit of goods is made security for a debt and the right to the property vests in the pledgee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sections comprised in Chapter VII of the Contract Act, but the Sale of Goods Act repealed the whole of the chapter. Section 72 (one of the repealed sections) defined 'goods' as meaning every kind of movable property; and as shares are movable property, they were goods within the meaning of that section. 6. When the Sale of Goods Act was placed on the statute book Section 178 of the Contract Act was amended. Before the amendment the section read as follows: A person who is in possession of any goods, or of any bill of lading, dock-warrant, warehouse-keeper's certificate, wharfinger's certificate, or warrant or order for delivery, or any other document of title to goods, may make a valid pledge of such goods or doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bombay High Court, long before 1930, held that the term 'goods' used in Section 178 of the Contract Act includes shares in joint stock companies and consequently recognised that there could be a valid pledge of shares. See B. D. Sethna v. National Bank (1910)12BOMLR870 , Fazal v. Mangaldas (1921) 46 Bom. 489 and Jamshedji v. Maganlal (1925)27BOMLR514 . It seems to us that even before the passing of the Sale of Goods Act the Bombay opinion was preferable to the Calcutta opinion, but as the result of the passing of the Sale of Goods Act and the amendment of the Contract Act we consider that the Bombay opinion is not open to dispute. We can see no valid reason for giving the word 'goods' a different meaning in the Contract Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
