Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • F.C Mittal and G.P Jain, Advocates,
  • D.R Nanda and D.N Awasbhi, Advocates,
Judges
  • S.B Capoor, J.
Acts
  • S. 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act No. 1 of 1956), hereinafter
  • sub-section (5) of S. 111, the Central Government
  • section by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960.
  • Amending Act of 1960, whereby sub-section (9)
  • (i) of Cl. (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 155,
  • sub-section (3) of Section 111
  • sub-section (5) of Section 111
  • sub-section (5) of S. 111,
  • 5). Sub-section (9),
  • Section 155(1)(b).
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • F.C Mittal and G.P Jain, Advocates,
  • D.R Nanda and D.N Awasbhi, Advocates,
Judges
  • S.B Capoor, J.
Acts
  • S. 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act No. 1 of 1956), hereinafter
  • sub-section (5) of S. 111, the Central Government
  • section by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960.
  • Amending Act of 1960, whereby sub-section (9)
  • (i) of Cl. (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 155,
  • sub-section (3) of Section 111
  • sub-section (5) of Section 111
  • sub-section (5) of S. 111,
  • 5). Sub-section (9),
  • Section 155(1)(b).
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 was filed by Arjan Singh, a shareholder (holding 1,000 fully paid shares) and director of Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd. The dispute concerns 10 shares (face value Rs. 100 each) which Sita Ram (respondent No. 2) purchased from Darshan Lal (respondent No. 3) in November 1960. Sita Ram applied for transfer and presented the share certificate. The company's Board of Directors considered the transfer on 12 March 1961 and refused to register it, considering it not in the company's best interests.

Sita Ram appealed to the Central Government under Section 111 of the Companies Act. By order dated 13 July 1962 the Deputy Secretary accepted the appeal and directed the company to register the transfer within ten days. The managing agents (Indian Industries Company) implemented that order on 28 July 1962. The present petition challenges the transfer effected pursuant to the Central Government's order, alleging that the managing agents implemented the transfer without reference to the Board and that Sita Ram was an undesirable person who had previously troubled the company and the managing agents.

The company admitted the Board's original refusal but explained that the managing agents (through their Deputy Managing Partner) effected the transfer to comply with the Central Government order and, in any event, said the company would not object to the removal of Sita Ram's name from the register if ordered by the Court. Darshan Lal was proceeded against ex parte; Sita Ram contested the petition, contending that the Board's refusal had been mala fide, that the Central Government order was valid and implemented, and that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge a complied-with Central Government order. The parties framed six issues and asked that the first two (requiring no evidence) be decided first.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the petition?
  2. Whether the petition under Section 155 of the Act, 1956, is maintainable in view of the orders of the Central Government under Section 111 of the Act?
  3. Was the transfer of 10 shares in favour of respondent No. 2 made by the Managing Partner of the Managing Agents of the respondent company; and if so, is this transfer valid?
  4. Whether the company has valid reason for excluding respondent No. 2 from being a registered shareholder of the company?
  5. Whether Sita Ram was excluded by the directors mala fide and for collateral purposes?
  6. Relief.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (as advanced by Mr. F. C. Mittal)

  • Section 155 gives the Court overriding power to rectify the register of members irrespective of whether an appeal under Section 111 has been filed or decided; the Court can decide title and thus Section 155 is not controlled by Section 111.
  • Relied upon authorities (Bombay and Calcutta decisions) which, he submitted, supported the proposition that Section 155 is not dependent on Section 111 and that a party may directly approach the Court under Section 155.
  • Two further points were pressed by Mr. Mittal: (a) a textual argument that sub-section (5) of Section 111 uses the phrase "may direct" and where the Central Government directs that the transfer "need not be registered" it does not necessarily oust the Court's powers under Section 155 (the judge observed it was unnecessary to express a firm opinion on this point); and (b) a factual/contention arising from the company's Articles (Arts. 33–38) that it was the Board's function to register transfers and here the transfer was registered by the Deputy Managing Partner of the managing agents without Board authority, which he implied affected validity.

Respondents' Arguments

  • Company / Managing Agents (represented by Shri Mahavir Gupta): Admitted the Board's refusal on 12 March 1961; explained that the Deputy Managing Partner of the managing agents effected registration only to comply with the Central Government's order dated 13 July 1962 and to avoid penalty under the newly-inserted sub-section (9) of Section 111. The company stated it had no objection to Court-ordered removal of Sita Ram's name, effectively supporting the petition only insofar as the Board's original stance was concerned.
  • Sita Ram (contesting respondent): Argued that the Board's refusal was mala fide, arbitrary and capricious; stressed the validity of the Central Government's order of 13 July 1962 and pointed out that the order had been implemented by the company; contended that the petitioner had no locus to challenge a valid and implemented Central Government order and that the petition was not maintainable under Section 155.
  • Mr. D. N. Awasthy (for respondent): Relied on the Supreme Court decision in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala to support the view that the remedies under Section 111(3) (appeal to the Central Government) and Section 155 (court petition) are alternative remedies; noted that the Central Government in entertaining appeals under Section 111(3) was exercising a judicial function and thus it was not appropriate to permit conflicting orders by two judicial authorities.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Sadashiv Shankar v. Gandhi Sewa Samaj Ltd., AIR 1958 Bom 247 Held that Section 155 was not dependent on Section 111 and that Section 155 conferred overriding powers on the Court to rectify the register notwithstanding earlier Central Government orders (decision predates the 1960 Amendment inserting sub-section (9) in Section 111). The Court noted this Bombay decision but distinguished it on the ground that it was decided before the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960 (which inserted sub-section (9) in Section 111). The judgment therefore has limited application post-amendment when penalties for non-compliance exist.
In re Coronation Tea Co., Ltd., AIR 1961 Cal 528 Followed the Bombay decision in concluding that sub-section (3) of Section 111 did not abridge the powers of the Court under Section 155; held that a person might directly approach the Court under Section 155. The court observed that these Calcutta decisions merely followed the earlier Bombay view but pointed out that in those Calcutta cases no order by the Central Government under Section 111 had been passed, so the precise question before the present Court (maintainability after a Central Government order and compliance) did not arise there.
Mt. Nazmunnessa Begum v. Vidyasagar Cotton Mills Ltd., AIR 1962 Cal 380 Addressed whether a purchaser whose transfer was not approved by directors could apply under Section 155; held that he could and that he was not confined to the appeal under Section 111. The court recorded that the Calcutta decisions supported the proposition that a party may choose to come directly to the Court under Section 155, but stressed these cases did not confront a situation where the Central Government had already made and the company had complied with an order under Section 111(5).
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala, (1961) 31 Com Cas 387; AIR 1961 SC 1669 Observed (majority) that the authority of the Central Government entertaining an appeal under Section 111(3) is an alternative remedy to a petition under Section 155; the Central Government was exercising judicial power in hearing such appeals. The court treated this Supreme Court observation as supportive of the alternative-remedies view: if both Central Government appeals under Section 111 and Court petitions under Section 155 are judicial in character, permitting conflicting orders would be undesirable; this bolstered the conclusion that Section 155 does not override a valid and complied-with Section 111(5) order.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded issue by issue, disposing first of the issues that required no evidence.

Issue No. 1 (locus standi): The Court observed that Section 155(1) permits "any member of the company" (and also a person aggrieved) to apply for rectification. The petitioner was indisputably a member and a director, so he had locus standi. This issue was answered in favour of the petitioner.

Issue No. 2 (maintainability in view of Central Government's Section 111 order): The Court's central analytical steps were:

  1. Statutory comparison and change in legal landscape: The Court noted that Section 155 is similar to Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, while Section 111 is a new provision under the 1956 Act. Critically, the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960 had inserted sub-section (9) into Section 111, creating a penal sanction for failure to implement a Central Government order directing registration within ten days.
  2. Examination of authorities: The Court reviewed the Bombay and Calcutta decisions relied on by the petitioner. It observed that the decisive Bombay authority (AIR 1958 Bom 247) was decided before the 1960 amendment (i.e., before sub-section (9) existed) and that the Calcutta decisions did not involve a situation where a Central Government order under Section 111(5) had been made and complied with. Thus, those precedents did not settle the present question post-amendment.
  3. Practical consequences and risk of conflict: The Court explained that adopting the petitioner's position (that Section 155 overrides Section 111 even after a valid Central Government order) could produce direct conflict between orders of two judicial authorities (the Central Government on appeal under Section 111(5) and the Court under Section 155). The statute does not indicate which of the two conflicting orders should prevail.
  4. Textual construction of "without sufficient cause": The Court gave full effect to the statutory phrase "without sufficient cause" in Section 155(1)(a). It reasoned that where the Central Government by order under Section 111(5) directs registration and the company complies, the resulting entry in the register cannot be said to be "without sufficient cause," and thus the necessary condition for a Section 155 petition is absent.
  5. Effect of compliance by managing agents: The Court examined the fact that the Deputy Secretary's order dated 13 July 1962 was received by the company on 18 July 1962 and had to be complied with within ten days. A partner of the managing agents, knowing of the order, effected compliance to avoid liability under sub-section (9) of Section 111. Given that compliance was lawful and compelled by the penal provision, the Board's earlier function to approve or refuse was at an end once the Central Government ordered registration.
  6. Consideration of alternative-remedies authority: The Court noted the Supreme Court decision in Harinagar which treated the Central Government appeal under Section 111(3) as an alternative remedy to the petition under Section 155, and observed that both authorities perform judicial functions; this further supported the court's caution against reading Section 155 as overriding Section 111 in circumstances where the Central Government has made an order and the company has complied.

On this basis the Court concluded that Section 155 does not permit deletion of a member's name where that name was entered pursuant to a valid order of the Central Government under Section 111(5) and where the company complied with that order. Therefore, the petition was not maintainable on Issue No. 2.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

PETITION DISMISSED.

The Court answered Issue No. 2 in the negative and dismissed the petition. The Court explicitly found that where the Central Government, under Section 111(5), directs registration and the company complies (including compliance effected by an officer or managing agent to avoid penal consequences under sub-section (9)), the entry in the register is not "without sufficient cause" and a petition under Section 155 is not maintainable to remove that entry.

Immediate consequences for the parties:

  • The transfer to Sita Ram, implemented pursuant to the Central Government order, stands and is not subject to deletion under Section 155 in this petition.
  • The petitioner, though having locus standi, cannot prevail under Section 155 once the company has complied with a Central Government order under Section 111(5).
  • No order as to costs was made because the legal question was one of first impression for the Court.

Broader implications identified by the Court:

The Court’s reasoning emphasises that (i) the insertion of sub-section (9) in Section 111 (penalties for non-compliance) materially altered the pre-amendment position and (ii) permitting Section 155 to override a valid and complied-with Section 111(5) order could create irreconcilable conflicts between judicial decisions of the Central Government (on appeal) and the civil courts. The Court therefore treated the remedies under Section 111 and Section 155 as providing alternative routes in the circumstances before it, rather than as establishing an unqualified overriding power in the Court under Section 155.

This summary was prepared strictly from the text of the provided opinion and contains no information beyond that text.

Show full summary ...

    Arjan Singh, Petitioner, v. The Panipat Woollen & General Mills Company Limited And Others

    Judgement

    This is a petition under S. 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act No. 1 of 1956), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. The petitioner is Arjan Singh, who is a shareholder in the Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd. (respondent No. 1 to the petition), hereinafter to be referred to as the company, and holds 1000 fully paid up shares of the face value of Rs. l0,000/-in it. Sita Ram, respondent No. 2, formerly held shares of the face value of Rs. 40,000/- in this company but in November 1958 he transferred his entire holding in the company. It is alleged in the petition that sometime in November 1960 Sita Ram had purchased 10 shares in the company of the face value of Rs. 100/- from Darshan Lal, respondent No. 3. An application was made by him for the transfer of these shares and the relevant share certificate was also presented to the company. The matter of transfer of these shares was considered by the Board of Directors of the company in their meeting held on the 12th March, 1961, but they rejected the application for transfer. Thereupon, Sita Ram filed an appeal under the provisions of S. 111 of the Act with the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Central Government, Department of Company Law Administration, New Delhi. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Company Law Administration, by his order dated the 13th July, 1962, accepted the appeal and directed the company to register the transfer of the aforesaid shares in the name of Sita Ram within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the order. Messrs. Indian Industries Company, which are the Managing Agents of the company, implemented the order of the Deputy Secretary on the 28th July, 1962.

    2. The present petition is directed against the transfer of shares so made in pursuance of the order dated the 13th July, 1962. It is alleged that the transfer entries were effected by the Managing Agents without referring the matter to the Board of Directors and on that account the transfer of shares is characterised as illegal. It is further alleged that Sita Ram was an undesirable person and during the period he was connected with the company he had troubled it and its managing agency firm in various ways.

    3. On behalf of the company, Shri Mahavir Gupta, Deputy Managing Partner of the Managing Agents (Indian Industries Company) has put in a written statement. It is admitted that the Board of Directors of the company, which considered the question of transfer of the shares on the 12th March, 1961, did not sanction it because they considered that it was not in the best interests of the company to admit Sita Ram as a member of it. It is further stated that Shri Mahavir Gupta as a partner of the Managing Agents effected the transfer of 10 shares from the name of Darshan Lal to Sita Ram with a view to avoid the penalty provision of law. The reference obviously is to sub-section (9) of section 111 of the Act, which is as follows:

    "If default is made in giving effect to the order of the Central Government within the period specified in sub-section (5) or to a direction of that Government given under the proviso to sub-s. (8), the company, and every officer of the company who is in default, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and with a further fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for every day after the first during which the default continues"
    .

    4. Finally, it is stated that as the transfer of the shares was effected by a partner of the Managing Agents without express authority from the Board of Directors, the company would have no objection to remove the name of Sita Ram from the register of members in pursuance of the order of this Court in the present petition. It is clear, therefore, that in effect respondent No. 1 is supporting the petition. Darshan Lal, the transferor, who was cited as respondent No. 3, was proceeded against ex parte, and the only contesting respondent is Sita Ram. According to the written statement furnished by him, the rejection of the registration of the transfer by the Board of Directors was mala fide, arbitrary and capricious. The validity of the order of the Central Government dated the 13th July, 1962, is stressed, and it is pointed out that this order has already been implemented by the company and that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge it. In particular, it is urged that in view of this order of the Central Government the petition is not maintainable under Section 155 of the Act. A detailed reply is given on the merits also. The issues framed are as follows:

    (1) Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the petition?

    (2) Whether the petition under Section 155 of the Act, 1956, is maintainable in view of the orders of the Central Government under Section 111 of the Act?

    (3) Was the transfer of 10 shares in favour of respondent No. 2 made by the Managing Partner of the Managing Agents of the respondent company; and if so, is this transfer valid?

    (4) Whether the company has valid reason for excluding respondent No. 2 from being registered share-holder of the company?

    (5) Whether Sita Ram was excluded by the directors mala fide and for the collateral purposes?

    (6) Relief.

    5. The parties desired that the first two issues, on which no evidence was required, may be disposed of first, and this prayer was accepted by the order dated the 9th November, 1962.

    6. Issue No. 1. The objection, so far as this issue is concerned, appears to be that the petitioner can have no possible grievance if the name of Sita Ram is entered in the register of members of the company. Under sub-section (1) of Section 155 of the Act, however, it is not only the person aggrieved who can move the Court to rectify the register of members but also "any member of the company". It is indisputable that the petitioner is a member of the company and is in fact its director also. As such he has locus standi to file the petition.

    7. Issue No. 2. The finding on the above issue would not help the petitioner if issue No. 2 as answered against him and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that issue No. 2 must be answered in the negative.

    8. Section 155 of the Act is, more or less, similar to 38 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (Act No. 7 of 1913). Section 111 of the Act is, however, a new provision. Under the latter section, so far as it is relevant to this case, if the company refuses to register or omits to register any transfer of any share in it, the transferor or transferee may appeal to the Central Government, which, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties to make their representations, shall, by order, direct either that the transfer or transmission snail be registered by the company or that it need not be registered by it; and in the former case, the company shall give effect to the decision within ten days of the receipt of the order (sub-section 5). Sub-section (9), which has already been reproduced above, was inserted in this section by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960. Under S. 155 (so far as material to this case), if the name of any person is without sufficient cause entered in the register of members of a company, the person aggrieved, or any member of the company, or the company, may apply to the Court for rectification of the register. Under sub-section (2), the Court may either reject the application or order rectification of the register. Under sub-section (3), the Court may decide any question relating to the title of any person who is a party to the application to have his name entered in or omitted from the register, and generally, may decide any question which it is necessary or expedient to decide in connection with the application for rectification. Now, there is no specific indication in the Act itself as to whether S. 155 controls S. 111 or whether these are alternative remedies, one of which only may be pursued to the exclusion of the other.

    9. The contention advanced by Mr. F. C. Mittal, on behalf of the petitioner, is that whether or not any appeal has been filed or decided by the Central Government under S. 111, the Court under S. 155 has the overriding power to rectify the register of members. The authorities relied upon by him in this connection are Sadashiv Shankar v. Gandhi Sewa Samaj Ltd., AIR 1958 Bom 247 at pages 248 to 249, In re, Coronation Tea Co., Ltd., AIR 1961 Cal 528 at pages 528 and 529 and Mt. Nazmunnessa Begum v. Vidyasagar Cotton Mills Ltd., AIR 1962 Cal 380 at pages 385 to 386. The two latter cases merely follow the case first cited. In that case the respondent-company refused to register the transfer of certain shares in favour of the two applicants, who then moved the Central Government under Section 111 and an order was made by the Central Government directing the respondent-company to effect registration in their book of transfers. The company did not comply with that order and accordingly the petitioners moved the Court under Section 155 of the Act. The learned Judge, allowing the petitions, held that Section 155 was not dependent upon Section 111, but on the contrary, it appears that Section 155 was the controlling section and gives the Court an overriding power notwithstanding any previous order of the Central Government. It is observed that it would be meaningless to give the Court a general power to decide any question including any question relating to the title of a person as was given by Section 155(3) and then indirectly cut off that power by giving the Central Government the same power to decide the same question in appeal first.

    It has to be noted that this decision of the Bombay Court was before the Amending Act of 1960, whereby sub-section (9) was inserted in Section 111. Under that section, as it stood before the amendment, no penalty was provided if the company chose to ignore the order of the Central Government made on appeal, and, accordingly, in order to secure effective relief in such a case, it was necessary for the party aggrieved to move the Court under S. 155.

    10. The two cases of the Calcutta Court cited by Mr. Mittal were decided by the same learned Judge. In neither of these cases had any order been passed by the Central Government on appeal under S. 111 of the Act. The objection made in AIR 1961 Cal 528 was that unless a person was a member of the company, he could not make an application under Section 155 of the Act and his remedies were under Section 111. The learned Judge observed that that argument was obviously untenable as under Section 155, any person aggrieved may apply to the Court for rectification of the register, and the case, AIR 1958 Bom 247 was referred to merely to support the conclusion that sub-section (3) of Section 111 did not in any way abridge the powers of the Court.

    In the next case, AIR 1962 Cal 380 the question was a similar one, whether a person, who had purchased shares but his purchase had not been approved by the Board of Directors, could make an application under Section 155. It was urged by the company that his only remedy was by way of an appeal under Section 111, and this argument was again repelled by the learned Judge following his previous decision as also the case, AIR 1958 Bom 247. The learned Judge quite rightly observed that it was not incumbent upon the party to prefer an appeal provided by Section 111 and that it may very well choose to come directly to the Court.

    11. It is thus clear that in the two Calcutta cases the question which falls for decision under issue No. 2 in the present case, that is, whether the petition under Section 155 is maintainable in view of the orders of the Central Government under Section 111 of the Act, did not arise. Very serious consequences would ensue if the view urged by Mr. Mittal is allowed to prevail. For instance, suppose that the Central Government (as in the present case) makes an order directing the company to register the transfer. This has to be done within 10 days of the receipt of the order, and in case of breach, heavy penal consequences are incurred under sub-section (9) by the company and every officer of the company who is in default. Suppose again that the company complies with the order of the Central Government beyond the period of 10 days and is thus in default, but it makes an application under Section 155 of the Act praying for deletion of the name of that member from the register of its members, this could lead to the possibility of a conflict in the order passed by a Court and by the Central Government on appeal, and there is no indication in the Act as to which would prevail. The Court is not given any right to sit in appeal or revision over the appellate order of the Central Government made under sub-section (5) of Section 111 directing the transfer to be registered.

    12. I am of the view that full effect is to be given to the phrase "without sufficient cause" as occurring in sub-cl. (i) of Cl. (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 155, that is an application for deletion from the register of the name of the member already entered on it is to be made only if such name is entered in the register "without sufficient cause". Now if the Central Government, in its appellate order under sub-section (5) of S. 111, directs that the name of the transferee be registered by the company in its register of members, and the company complies with that direction, it cannot possibly be said that the entry of the name in the register is "without sufficient cause" and in such circumstances the petition would not be maintainable under Section 155, of the Act.

    13. As against the above view, Mr. Mittal submitted two arguments, the first a general one and the second directed particularly to the facts of this case. The first was that under sub-section (5) of S. 111, the Central Government may either direct that the transfer shall be registered by the company or that it need not be registered by it, and Mr. Mittal contended that in a case in which the order was that the transfer need not be registered by the company, it would not be open to the person aggrieved to move the Court under S. 155 unless it be held that that section gives the Court overriding powers notwithstanding any previous order of the Central Government. It is to be noted, however, that the words used in sub-section (5) are in this context not mandatory; it lays down that the Central Government may direct that the transfer "need not be registered by the company" and not that the transfer shall not be registered by the company, and hence the exclusion of the powers of the Court under Section 155 in such cases cannot be inferred and redress would be available under Section 155(1)(b). However, it is unnecessary to express any firm opinion on this question, which is not before me.

    14. Then it is argued that under the Articles of Association of the Company (Copy Annexure A) vide Arts. 33 to 38, it is the function of the Board of Directors to register the transfer of shares, while in the present case the transfer was registered by the Deputy Managing Partner of the Managing Agency Firm. I do not see how this circumstance can affect the issue. Under Cl. (3) of Section 2 of the Act, the term "officer" includes, inter alia, the managing agent and where the managing agent is a firm, any partner in the firm. Under cl. (31) of section 2, the term "officer who is in default" in relation to any provision referred to in S. 5, has the meaning specified in that section. Section 5 lays down that

    "for the purpose of any provision in this Act which enacts that an officer of the company who is in default shall be liable to any punishment or penalty, whether by way of imprisonment, fine or otherwise, the expression "officer who is in default" means any officer of the company who is knowingly guilty of the default, non-compliance etc."

    The order of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India was received by the company on the 18th July, 1962, and compliance had to be effected within ten days. The Deputy Managing Partner in the Managing Agency Firm, who had knowledge of this order, complied with it within the time laid down by the statute, as he was bound to do, otherwise he would have been in default under subsection (9) of section 111. The function of the Directors to approve or not of the transfer of the shares had come to an end as soon as the Central Government made its order dated the 13th July, 1962. In these circumstances, it would be futile to argue that the -entry of respondent No. 2s name in the register of members, as made in compliance with the order of the Central Government, was "without sufficient cause", and hence the necessary condition for the maintainability of the petition under Section 155 of the Act was wanting.

    15. Mr. D. N. Awasthy, on behalf of the contesting respondent, pointed out that some support for the view, that the remedies by way of appeal to the Central Government provided by sub-section (3) of Section 111 and that under Section 155 of the Act are alternative remedies, is provided by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala, (1961) 31 Com Cas 387: (AIR 1961 SC 1669). At p. 397 of the report (Com Cas): (at p. 1676 of AIR), there is the observation in the majority judgment to the effect that the authority of the Central Government entertaining an appeal under Section 111(3) being an alternative remedy to an aggrieved party to a petition under S. 155, the investiture of authority is in the exercise of the judicial power of the State. The question before their Lordships of the Supreme Court was whether the Central Government hearing an appeal under S. 111(3) of the Act is acting in the exercise of the judicial powers or administrative powers of the State, and they had no occasion to consider whether Section 155 confers overriding powers on the Court as against the appellate authority of the Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 111. However, since the Central Government hearing an appeal under Section 111(3) is also excercising judicial function, it is not feasible to hold that under the Act a position could arise in which there could be a conflict between the orders made by two authorities acting judicially, the Central Government under sub-section (5) of S. 111 any the Court under Section 155. Since S. 155 does not purport to confer overriding powers on the Court, it should be held that the two sections provide alternative remedies. In that sense, the case relied upon by Mr. Awasthy does help him.

    16. For the reasons given above, I answer issue No. 2 in the negative and as a result the petition is dismissed. As the legal question was one of first impression, I make no order as to costs.

    Petition dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Arjan Singh, Petitioner, v. The Panipat Woollen & General Mills Company Limited And Others
    (Jan 11, 1963)