ARJUN PRASAD v. SHANTILAL SHANKARLAL SHAH AND OTHERS (AND CONNECTED APPEAL)
Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 402; 1961 INSC 361
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: K.C. DAS GUPTA , RAGHUBAR DAYAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
1961 INSC 361. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1961-12-22. ARJUN PRASAD v. SHANTILAL SHANKARLAL SHAH AND OTHERS (AND CONNECTED APPEAL). Read the...
Judgment text
IHI s1. ,, of Oriu• •• B/,upnidra Kumor Bou IHI 402 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. qrdinan:e arc, in our opinion, very similar to the rights with which the court was dealing in the case of Steavenson and they must be held to endure and last even after the expiry of the Ordinan~e. The Ordinance has in terms provided that the Order of Court declaring the elections to the Cuttack Muni· cipality t-0 be invalid shall be deemed to be and always to havo been of no legal effect whatever and that the sa. id elections are thereby validated. That being so, the said elections must be deemed to have been validly held under the Aot and the. life of the newly elected Municipality would be governed by the relevant provisions of the Act and would not come to an end as soon as the Ordinance expires. Therefore, we do not think that the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Chetty against the compe· tence of the appeals can be upheld.
The result is that tho appeals are allowed, the Order passed by the High Court is set. aside, and the Writ Petition filed by Mr. Bose is di8missed with costs throughout. Appeals allowed. ARJUN PRASAD v. SHANTILAL SHANKARLAL SHAH AND OTHERS (AND CONNOOI'ED APPEAL) (K. C. DAS G(T}'TA AND RAOHUBAR D~Y. AL, JJ:l om n -If caa be preaen. t "in ptraon in mtth~- M . c pa Y ,. ,~ • Per- a..... mai -V C" taken un er provts 2 s. c. R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 403 Act, 1913. At the meeting of the unsecured creditors of the company a resolution was pa8'ed by the creditors present, either in person or through proxy, by majority in number as well as three. fourths in value. At this meeting the appel· lant claiming to represent two of the creditor companies cast his votes on behalf of the said companies in support of the resolution. No objection wa• taken at the meeting to the validity of the votes by any of the creditors who opposed the resolution.
When the m liter came up for orders before the Company Judge an objection was raised that the votes cast by the appellant on behalf of the two creditor companits were not valid, inasmuch ass. 153(2) of the Act requires that the creditors should be present either in pe~son or by proxy at the meeting and that, in the present case, the two creditor companies, being corporations, could not be considered to have been present at the meeting "in person". 1'he Company Judge overruled the objection on the grounds that it was raised at a late stage and that, in any case, the votes were valid because the appellant's attendance at the meeting amounted to the attendance of the companies "in person". On appeal, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court rejected the contention that no appeal Jay to the High Court from the order of the Company Judge but only to the Supreme Court and, on the merits, set aside hi! order. Held, that: (I) the. word "Court" ins.
153(7) of the Tndian Companies Act, 1913, meam the Court exercising original jurhdiction, and. therefore, an appeal from the order of the Company Judge lay to the High Court under cl. IO of the Letters Patent; (2) though under the General Clauses Act, 1897 a company is a "perso·nu so that whenever the word "pers~n" is used in any statute a company would be included there- under, unleiS there is some special provision by a law a company which is not a physical person cannot "be prese~t" at any place "in penon"; and (3) in the present case the votes cast by the appellant wcte not valid in law and it being admitted that if the votes were invalid th. e requisite majority of three-fourths in value requisite under s. 153(2) of the Indian Co. mpanies Act, 1913, would not be obtained and therefore no further action could be taken by the Court in the matter, the delay in raising the objection would not entitlo the Court to ignore the legal defect of the votes.
CIVIL APPELLATE JumsnICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 201 and ~02 of 1961. 19~1 . Arjun Pras•d •• Slumti/al S/iau~rl. Z SMh 1961 Arjwi Prasad v, Slt4nlila/ Shank4Tlol Shah 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1062] SOPP. Appeals from the judgment and decree dated May, Hl, I! l5S of thn Patna High Court in L. P. As. No8 I::l and 14 of HJ5i. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. K. Garg, M. K. Ramamurthi, D. P. Singh and S. C. Agaru·ala, for tho appellants. 11!. C. Setalw. d, Attorne11·General for India. B. P. Rajyarhia and K. K. Sinha, for tho respondents. 1961. December 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D 41 J, DAs Gul'TA, J. -These appeals raison question as to the manner in which a oreditor compan,v can Yalidly cast its vote at a meeting of the creditors held under the provisions of s. J53 of the Indian Companies Ac't, 1913. The question a. riRes in connection with such a meeting held of th•· rr nt either in person or by proxy at the meeting.
The aprreem•mt of thosc who are not present at the meeting either in person or by proxy cannot be taken into consideration. Any creditor whether a corporation or a natuml person can be present at a meeting by proxy. A natural person can of course be: present at a meeting "in person". Can a corporatirm OH present at a meeting "in person''? It appears to us t. h'. lt unless there is some special provision by a law, a company which is not a physical person cannot "be present" at any place "in person. '' It is true that under the General Clauses Act, 18\li, a company is a "person", so that whenever the word ''pt•rson" is used in any statute a compa11y woul essment under s. 32H of ~e Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, 1951 . 4rjun Prarad v. Sha•lital SiuJllkarl•I Shah 1961 Denmber 32.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.