D. Sasidharan Vs. Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors.

Decided On : Nov-09-1989

Court : Chennai

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D. Sasidharan Vs. Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Article 12 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 1 => 'Article 14',
			(int) 2 => 'Constitutional',
			(int) 3 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 4 => 'Article 226 or',
			(int) 5 => 'Article 32 of the Constitution',
			(int) 6 => 'Article 14',
			(int) 7 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 8 => 'Article 226'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'ORDERSrinivasan',
			(int) 1 => 'Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.',
			(int) 2 => 'Company',
			(int) 3 => 'Company',
			(int) 4 => 'Directors',
			(int) 5 => 'Directors',
			(int) 6 => 'State',
			(int) 7 => 'State',
			(int) 8 => 'Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Directors',
			(int) 10 => 'Company',
			(int) 11 => 'Directors',
			(int) 12 => 'Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Directors',
			(int) 14 => 'Court',
			(int) 15 => 'Court',
			(int) 16 => 'State',
			(int) 17 => 'the Supreme Court of India',
			(int) 18 => 'India v. Escorts Ltd.',
			(int) 19 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 20 => 'State',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Court',
			(int) 25 => 'International Airport Authority',
			(int) 26 => 'State',
			(int) 27 => 'State',
			(int) 28 => 'Reilly v. Mackman',
			(int) 29 => 'Congress',
			(int) 30 => 'State',
			(int) 31 => 'State',
			(int) 32 => 'State',
			(int) 33 => 'State',
			(int) 34 => 'State',
			(int) 35 => 'Court',
			(int) 36 => 'Court',
			(int) 37 => 'State',
			(int) 38 => 'Court',
			(int) 39 => 'Court',
			(int) 40 => 'Court',
			(int) 41 => 'State',
			(int) 42 => 'State',
			(int) 43 => 'State',
			(int) 44 => 'State',
			(int) 45 => 'State',
			(int) 46 => 'State',
			(int) 47 => 'Company',
			(int) 48 => 'the Supreme Court of India',
			(int) 49 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 50 => 'State',
			(int) 51 => 'Court',
			(int) 52 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 53 => 'Court'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'English'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '13883',
			(int) 1 => '1989',
			(int) 2 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 3 => '72',
			(int) 4 => '7',
			(int) 5 => '10',
			(int) 6 => '11',
			(int) 7 => '12',
			(int) 8 => '14',
			(int) 9 => '18',
			(int) 10 => '21',
			(int) 11 => '22',
			(int) 12 => '24',
			(int) 13 => '25',
			(int) 14 => '35',
			(int) 15 => '36',
			(int) 16 => '37',
			(int) 17 => '38',
			(int) 18 => '41',
			(int) 19 => '44',
			(int) 20 => '14134',
			(int) 21 => '1989',
			(int) 22 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 23 => 'the 25th of September, 1989',
			(int) 24 => 'the 25th of September',
			(int) 25 => 'the 2nd',
			(int) 26 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 27 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 28 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 29 => '10.10.1989',
			(int) 30 => '18.10.1989',
			(int) 31 => '14.10.1989',
			(int) 32 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 33 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 34 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 35 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 36 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 37 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 38 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 39 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 40 => 'the 2nd',
			(int) 41 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 42 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 43 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 44 => 'July, 1989',
			(int) 45 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 46 => 'a period of',
			(int) 47 => 'three months',
			(int) 48 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 49 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 50 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 51 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 52 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 53 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 54 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 55 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 56 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 57 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 58 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 59 => '1982',
			(int) 60 => '1124',
			(int) 61 => '1983',
			(int) 62 => '1064',
			(int) 63 => '1984',
			(int) 64 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 65 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 66 => 'the 1st'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2nd',
			(int) 1 => '2nd',
			(int) 2 => '2nd',
			(int) 3 => '2nd',
			(int) 4 => '2nd',
			(int) 5 => '2nd',
			(int) 6 => '2nd',
			(int) 7 => 'first',
			(int) 8 => 'third',
			(int) 9 => 'first',
			(int) 10 => 'first',
			(int) 11 => '2nd',
			(int) 12 => '2nd',
			(int) 13 => 'first',
			(int) 14 => '1st',
			(int) 15 => '1st',
			(int) 16 => 'first',
			(int) 17 => '1st',
			(int) 18 => '2nd',
			(int) 19 => 'first',
			(int) 20 => '2nd',
			(int) 21 => '1st',
			(int) 22 => '1st',
			(int) 23 => '2nd',
			(int) 24 => '1st',
			(int) 25 => '2nd',
			(int) 26 => '2nd',
			(int) 27 => '1st',
			(int) 28 => '3rd',
			(int) 29 => 'first',
			(int) 30 => '2nd',
			(int) 31 => 'first',
			(int) 32 => 'third',
			(int) 33 => '2nd',
			(int) 34 => 'third',
			(int) 35 => 'first',
			(int) 36 => 'first',
			(int) 37 => '2nd'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Nos',
			(int) 1 => 'Nos',
			(int) 2 => 'Directors',
			(int) 3 => 'Directors',
			(int) 4 => 'Directors',
			(int) 5 => 'Directors',
			(int) 6 => 'nisi',
			(int) 7 => 'Sukhdev Singh v.',
			(int) 8 => 'Bhagatramny Sardar',
			(int) 9 => 'Menaka Gandhi',
			(int) 10 => 'Ramana Dayaram',
			(int) 11 => 'Ajay Hasia',
			(int) 12 => 'Davy',
			(int) 13 => 'Radha Krishna Aggarwal',
			(int) 14 => 'Administrative Law and Public Law'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '3 to 46',
			(int) 1 => '90',
			(int) 2 => '4',
			(int) 3 => '121',
			(int) 4 => '1989.3',
			(int) 5 => '81',
			(int) 6 => '81,00,000',
			(int) 7 => '19',
			(int) 8 => '6',
			(int) 9 => '20.10.1989.6',
			(int) 10 => 'two',
			(int) 11 => 'two-fold',
			(int) 12 => '1',
			(int) 13 => '54',
			(int) 14 => '54',
			(int) 15 => '101',
			(int) 16 => '102',
			(int) 17 => '1975)ILLJ399SC',
			(int) 18 => '1978]2SCR621',
			(int) 19 => '1981)ILLJ103SC',
			(int) 20 => '3',
			(int) 21 => '3',
			(int) 22 => '278',
			(int) 23 => '2',
			(int) 24 => '3',
			(int) 25 => '1977]3SCR249',
			(int) 26 => 'two',
			(int) 27 => 'two',
			(int) 28 => '2,000'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'L.I.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'East Serkshire Health',
			(int) 2 => 'India',
			(int) 3 => 'England'
		),
		'LANGUAGE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'English'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '812570',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'D. Sasidharan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Sasidharan Vs. Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Radha Krishna Aggarwal v. State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1989-11-09',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Srinivasan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing by consent of parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prayer in W.P. No. 13883 of 1989 reads as follows:-to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents and respondents Nos. 3 to 46, 72 and 90 being the Directors of the Company from transferring the shares held by the proposed transferors being respondents Nos. 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 44, to 121 held by them in the 2nd respondent company to any other person who is not a shareholder of the 2nd respondent company..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The prayer in W.P. No. 14134 of 1989 reads as follows:to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to forbear the transfer of any shares of the 2nd respondent company from the existing shareholders to any other person, which transfer is sought to be effected subsequent to the 25th of September, 1989 by deposit of the share certificates along with the transfer applications in the 2nd respondent company on or after the 25th of September, 1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are shareholders/Directors in the 2nd respondent company, viz., Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., It is not necessary to refer in detail to the various facts set out in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions. The facts which are relevant can be stated in a very short compass.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The 2nd respondent company has obtained a loan of about Rs. 81 lakhs from the 1st respondent, besides other loans with which these writ petitions are not concerned. While taking the loan of Rs. 81,00,000 and odd, the Directors of the 2nd respondent Company gave an undertaking to the 1st respondent that they shall not transfer, assign, dispose of, pledge, charge or create any lien or in any way encumber their existing or future shareholders in the company in favour of any person so long as any money remained due by the Company to the first respondent or till the project was duly completed whichever was later without the 1st respondent's prior written approval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Some of the Directors as well as shareholders wanted to transfer their shares to third parties and applied to the first respondent for permission to effect such transfers, by letter dated 10.10.1989. All the letters of request for transfer of shares were enclosed. The first respondent sent a communication on 18.10.1989 to the 2nd respondent company approving the disposal of shares by 19 of the present ordinary Directors and also 6 of the Ex-ordinary Directors of the 2nd respondent company, subject to certain conditions. The first respondent accordingly effected transfers, but such registration of transfers commenced on 14.10.1989 and concluded on 20.10.1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, the petitioners in these two writ petitions filed the writ petitions for the prayers already extracted. The main ground on which the prayers are made, as found in the affidavits, is that by a convention obtaining in the Company, transfer, of shares belonging to the Directors should be effected only to other members of the families of such Directors and not to strangers and that such convention is being broken by the proposed transfers. It is alleged that the 1st respondent owes a duty to all the Directors, who gave an undertaking to the 1st respondent at the time of taking loan not to transfer their shares as referred to earlier, to prevent the effecting of transfers until the loans are discharged. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the 1st respondent being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it being a State instru-mantality, it is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court with regard to every action of the 1st respondent and in this particular case the 1st respondent has failed to prevent the transfers sought to be made by some of the Directors and shareholders. No doubt an allegation has been made in the affidavits that the proposed transfers affect the interests of the Company substantially but no particulars have been given in either of the affidavits as to how the interest of the company would be affected by the proposed transfers; nor any details have been given in the affidavits as to whether the interests of the 1st respondent would be affected and if so how.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. When the writ petitions were taken up for hearing, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the 1st respondent that the prayers as against the 1st respondent are not sustainable in the form in which they have been made. The objection is really two-fold. The first objection is that even when the writ petitions came up for admission, transfers had already been effected and at any rate the approval of the 1st respondent for such transfers had been given and therefore there could not be a prayer for issue of mandamus to the 1st respondent to prevent the transfers from being effected. In other words, the contention is that the writ petitions had become infruc-tuous on the dates when they came up for admission. The 2nd objection is that there cannot be a mandamus directing the 1st respondent to prevent the transfer of shares held by certain Directors and shareholders in the 2nd respondent company. In other words, the contention is that the first respondent cannot have any say with regard to the legality or validity of transfer of shares, if effected by the 2nd respondent company without the prior approval of the 1st respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It is seen from the undertaking given by the Directors that they agreed with the 1st respondent not to transfer their shares until either of the events mentioned therein takes place. That will not in any way give jurisdiction to the 1st respondent to say that a particular transfer of share is invalid in law. It is certainly open to the 1st respondent, if a transfer is effected without the prior approval of the 1st respondent, to say that the agreement between respondents 1 and 2 has been violated and the 2nd respondent is not entitled to get the benefits of the agreement thereafter. In those circumstances this Court cannot issue a mandamus to the 1st respondent to stop the transfer of shares to be effected by the 2nd respondent Company. Hence I am inclined to uphold the preliminary objection.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the facts, it is already seen that the transfer has been effected with the approval of the 2nd respondent company. It is contended by the petitioners that the approval given by the 1st respondent is vitiated by mala fides. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the fact that the loan was advanced in July, 1989 and the undertaking was taken by the 1st respondent at that time and within a period of three months, they approved all the proposed transfers by some of the Directors to strangers. It is also stated that the approval of the 1st respondent was obtained by the 3rd respondent with his influence over the 1st respondent. This averment found in the affidavit is not sufficient to accept the contention that there is mala fide on the part of the 1st respondent, As pointed out already, unless it is made out in the affidavit that the interests of the first respondent or the interests of the 2nd respondent company were prejudiced by the approval of the proposed transfers, there cannot be any inference of mala fide in the action of the first respondent. According to learned counsel, the undertaking given by 54 Directors would mean that the 1st respondent would hold all the 54 Directors jointly liable and responsible for the discharge of the loan and the 1st respondent is not entitled to release some of them by substituting third parties in their place. I cannot agree with this contention, as the right of the 1st respondent is only to take such steps as are necessary to safeguard its interests in the matter of recovery of loan advanced to the 2nd respondent Company. If the 1st respondent is satisfied that the recovery of loan will not in any manner be prejudiced by the substitution of certain shareholders with third parties, then it is not for the petitioners in the writ petitions or this Court to say that the 1st respondent ought not to have given approval for the transfer of such shares.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned counsel persists by saying that if the action of the 1st respondent is vitiated by mala fides, this Court can certainly give its directions to the 1st respondent as the 1st respondent happens to be an instrumentality of the State. In this connection, learned counsel placed reliance on certain observations made by the Supreme Court of India in L.I.C. of India v. Escorts Ltd. : 1986(8)ECC189 Learned counsel invites my attention to paragraphs 101 and 102 which read thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was however urged by the learned counsel for the company that the Life Insurance Corporation was an instrumentality of the State and was, therefore, debarred by Article 14 from acting arbitrarily. It was therefore, under an obligation to state to the Court its reasons for the resolution once a rule nisi was issued to it. If it failed to disclose its reasons to the Court, the Court would presume that it had no valid reasons to give and its action was, therefore, arbitrary. The learned counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatramny Sardar Singh : (1975)ILLJ399SC , Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India : [1978]2SCR621 , International Airport Authority v. Ramana Dayaram Sheety : (1979)IILLJ217SC and Ajay Hasia : (1981)ILLJ103SC . The learned Attorney General, on the other hand, contended that actions of the State or an instrumentality of the State, which do not properly belong to the field of public law but belong to the field of private law are not liable to be subjected to judicial review. He relied on Q Reilly v. Mackman (1982) 3 A E.R. 1124, Davy v. Spelthome (1983) 3 AE.R. 278, I Congress del parties v. East Serkshire Health Aut(1991) 2 A E.R. 1064 R.hority (1984) 3 A E.R. 425 and Radha Krishna Aggarwal v. State of Bihar : [1977]3SCR249 . While we do find considerable force in the contention of the learned Attorney General it may not be necessary for us to enter into any lengthy discussion of the topic, as we shall presently see. We also desire to warn ourselves against readily referring to English cases on questions of Constitutional law, Administrative Law and Public Law as the law in India in these branches has forged ahead of the law in England, guided as we are by our Constitution and uninhibited as we are by the technical rules which have hampered the development of the English law. While we do not for a moment doubt that every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason and that, in appropriate cases, actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution, we do not construe Article 14 as a charter for judicial review of State actions and to call upon the State to account for its action in its manifold activities by stating reasons for such actions. For example, if the action of the State is political or sovereign in character, the Court will keep away from it. The Court will not debate academic matters or concern itself with the intricacies of trade and commerce. If the action of the State is related to contractual obligation of obligations arising out of the Court, the Court may not ordinarily examine it unless the action has some public law character attached to it. Broadly speaking, the Court will examine actions of State if they pertain to the public law domain and refain from examining them if they pertain to the private law field. The difficulty will lie in demarcating the frontier between the public law domain and the private law field. It is impossible to draw the line with precision and we do not want to attempt it. The question must be decided in each case with reference to the particular action, the activity in which the State or the instrumentality of the State is engaged when performing the action, the Public law or private law character of the action, and a host of other relevant circumstances. When the State or an instrumentality of the State ventures into the corporate world and purchases the shares of a company, it assumes to itself the ordinary role of a shareholder, and dons the robes of a shareholder, with all the rights available to such a shareholder. There is no reason why the State as a shareholder should be expected to state its reasons when it seeks to change management, by a resolution of the Company, like any other shareholder.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In my opinion, the observations made by the Supreme Court of India as extracted above are really against the contention put forwarded by the writ petitioners. The Supreme Court has clearly laid down that even a State instrumentality is entitled to enter into ventures just as a private individual or a business man and when it dons the robes of a shareholder, it will have all the rights available to a shareholder. The last sentence in the passage extracted above puts the matter, beyond any doubt. In view of the dictum, there can be no doubt that the 1st respondent having exercised its power to grant or refuse approval, and in this case granted the approval for transfer of shares, this Court will not have any jurisdiction to say that the 1st respondent has acted erroneously. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, if the matter falls within the private law field, then the Court will have no jurisdiction. In this case, this is a matter, which falls within the private law field, as it is a right accruing to the first respondent out of a contract between the first respondent and the 2nd respondent, and in those circumstances the writ petitions are not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I should point out before parting with these cases that these writ petitions are really a camouflage for enforcing the alleged rights of the petitioners as against another group of shareholders of the same company. Article 226 will not provide an arena for a fight between two private parties. In this case, the 1st respondent has been added as a party only to bring it within the scope of Article 226 apparently. But if the veil is pierced and the real dispute is looked at, it is only between the writ petitioners on the one hand and the persons who seek to transfer their shares to strangers on the other. The basis of the claim of the petitioners is a right of pre-emption available to the members of the family which has to be established only before the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. That cannot be done in these writ petitions, as it is a question of fact which requires evidence to be adduced before any finding is given thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In view of the above reasons, these two writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 2,000 one set.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1990)1MLJ248',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '812570'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D. Sasidharan Vs. Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Article 12 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 1 => 'Article 14',
		(int) 2 => 'Constitutional',
		(int) 3 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 4 => 'Article 226 or',
		(int) 5 => 'Article 32 of the Constitution',
		(int) 6 => 'Article 14',
		(int) 7 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 8 => 'Article 226'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'ORDERSrinivasan',
		(int) 1 => 'Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.',
		(int) 2 => 'Company',
		(int) 3 => 'Company',
		(int) 4 => 'Directors',
		(int) 5 => 'Directors',
		(int) 6 => 'State',
		(int) 7 => 'State',
		(int) 8 => 'Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Directors',
		(int) 10 => 'Company',
		(int) 11 => 'Directors',
		(int) 12 => 'Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Directors',
		(int) 14 => 'Court',
		(int) 15 => 'Court',
		(int) 16 => 'State',
		(int) 17 => 'the Supreme Court of India',
		(int) 18 => 'India v. Escorts Ltd.',
		(int) 19 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 20 => 'State',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Court',
		(int) 25 => 'International Airport Authority',
		(int) 26 => 'State',
		(int) 27 => 'State',
		(int) 28 => 'Reilly v. Mackman',
		(int) 29 => 'Congress',
		(int) 30 => 'State',
		(int) 31 => 'State',
		(int) 32 => 'State',
		(int) 33 => 'State',
		(int) 34 => 'State',
		(int) 35 => 'Court',
		(int) 36 => 'Court',
		(int) 37 => 'State',
		(int) 38 => 'Court',
		(int) 39 => 'Court',
		(int) 40 => 'Court',
		(int) 41 => 'State',
		(int) 42 => 'State',
		(int) 43 => 'State',
		(int) 44 => 'State',
		(int) 45 => 'State',
		(int) 46 => 'State',
		(int) 47 => 'Company',
		(int) 48 => 'the Supreme Court of India',
		(int) 49 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 50 => 'State',
		(int) 51 => 'Court',
		(int) 52 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 53 => 'Court'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'English'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '13883',
		(int) 1 => '1989',
		(int) 2 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 3 => '72',
		(int) 4 => '7',
		(int) 5 => '10',
		(int) 6 => '11',
		(int) 7 => '12',
		(int) 8 => '14',
		(int) 9 => '18',
		(int) 10 => '21',
		(int) 11 => '22',
		(int) 12 => '24',
		(int) 13 => '25',
		(int) 14 => '35',
		(int) 15 => '36',
		(int) 16 => '37',
		(int) 17 => '38',
		(int) 18 => '41',
		(int) 19 => '44',
		(int) 20 => '14134',
		(int) 21 => '1989',
		(int) 22 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 23 => 'the 25th of September, 1989',
		(int) 24 => 'the 25th of September',
		(int) 25 => 'the 2nd',
		(int) 26 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 27 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 28 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 29 => '10.10.1989',
		(int) 30 => '18.10.1989',
		(int) 31 => '14.10.1989',
		(int) 32 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 33 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 34 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 35 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 36 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 37 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 38 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 39 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 40 => 'the 2nd',
		(int) 41 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 42 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 43 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 44 => 'July, 1989',
		(int) 45 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 46 => 'a period of',
		(int) 47 => 'three months',
		(int) 48 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 49 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 50 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 51 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 52 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 53 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 54 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 55 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 56 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 57 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 58 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 59 => '1982',
		(int) 60 => '1124',
		(int) 61 => '1983',
		(int) 62 => '1064',
		(int) 63 => '1984',
		(int) 64 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 65 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 66 => 'the 1st'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2nd',
		(int) 1 => '2nd',
		(int) 2 => '2nd',
		(int) 3 => '2nd',
		(int) 4 => '2nd',
		(int) 5 => '2nd',
		(int) 6 => '2nd',
		(int) 7 => 'first',
		(int) 8 => 'third',
		(int) 9 => 'first',
		(int) 10 => 'first',
		(int) 11 => '2nd',
		(int) 12 => '2nd',
		(int) 13 => 'first',
		(int) 14 => '1st',
		(int) 15 => '1st',
		(int) 16 => 'first',
		(int) 17 => '1st',
		(int) 18 => '2nd',
		(int) 19 => 'first',
		(int) 20 => '2nd',
		(int) 21 => '1st',
		(int) 22 => '1st',
		(int) 23 => '2nd',
		(int) 24 => '1st',
		(int) 25 => '2nd',
		(int) 26 => '2nd',
		(int) 27 => '1st',
		(int) 28 => '3rd',
		(int) 29 => 'first',
		(int) 30 => '2nd',
		(int) 31 => 'first',
		(int) 32 => 'third',
		(int) 33 => '2nd',
		(int) 34 => 'third',
		(int) 35 => 'first',
		(int) 36 => 'first',
		(int) 37 => '2nd'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Nos',
		(int) 1 => 'Nos',
		(int) 2 => 'Directors',
		(int) 3 => 'Directors',
		(int) 4 => 'Directors',
		(int) 5 => 'Directors',
		(int) 6 => 'nisi',
		(int) 7 => 'Sukhdev Singh v.',
		(int) 8 => 'Bhagatramny Sardar',
		(int) 9 => 'Menaka Gandhi',
		(int) 10 => 'Ramana Dayaram',
		(int) 11 => 'Ajay Hasia',
		(int) 12 => 'Davy',
		(int) 13 => 'Radha Krishna Aggarwal',
		(int) 14 => 'Administrative Law and Public Law'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '3 to 46',
		(int) 1 => '90',
		(int) 2 => '4',
		(int) 3 => '121',
		(int) 4 => '1989.3',
		(int) 5 => '81',
		(int) 6 => '81,00,000',
		(int) 7 => '19',
		(int) 8 => '6',
		(int) 9 => '20.10.1989.6',
		(int) 10 => 'two',
		(int) 11 => 'two-fold',
		(int) 12 => '1',
		(int) 13 => '54',
		(int) 14 => '54',
		(int) 15 => '101',
		(int) 16 => '102',
		(int) 17 => '1975)ILLJ399SC',
		(int) 18 => '1978]2SCR621',
		(int) 19 => '1981)ILLJ103SC',
		(int) 20 => '3',
		(int) 21 => '3',
		(int) 22 => '278',
		(int) 23 => '2',
		(int) 24 => '3',
		(int) 25 => '1977]3SCR249',
		(int) 26 => 'two',
		(int) 27 => 'two',
		(int) 28 => '2,000'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'L.I.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'East Serkshire Health',
		(int) 2 => 'India',
		(int) 3 => 'England'
	),
	'LANGUAGE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'English'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '812570',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'D. Sasidharan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Sasidharan Vs. Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Radha Krishna Aggarwal v. State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1989-11-09',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Srinivasan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing by consent of parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prayer in W.P. No. 13883 of 1989 reads as follows:-to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents and respondents Nos. 3 to 46, 72 and 90 being the Directors of the Company from transferring the shares held by the proposed transferors being respondents Nos. 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 44, to 121 held by them in the 2nd respondent company to any other person who is not a shareholder of the 2nd respondent company..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The prayer in W.P. No. 14134 of 1989 reads as follows:to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to forbear the transfer of any shares of the 2nd respondent company from the existing shareholders to any other person, which transfer is sought to be effected subsequent to the 25th of September, 1989 by deposit of the share certificates along with the transfer applications in the 2nd respondent company on or after the 25th of September, 1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are shareholders/Directors in the 2nd respondent company, viz., Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., It is not necessary to refer in detail to the various facts set out in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions. The facts which are relevant can be stated in a very short compass.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The 2nd respondent company has obtained a loan of about Rs. 81 lakhs from the 1st respondent, besides other loans with which these writ petitions are not concerned. While taking the loan of Rs. 81,00,000 and odd, the Directors of the 2nd respondent Company gave an undertaking to the 1st respondent that they shall not transfer, assign, dispose of, pledge, charge or create any lien or in any way encumber their existing or future shareholders in the company in favour of any person so long as any money remained due by the Company to the first respondent or till the project was duly completed whichever was later without the 1st respondent's prior written approval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Some of the Directors as well as shareholders wanted to transfer their shares to third parties and applied to the first respondent for permission to effect such transfers, by letter dated 10.10.1989. All the letters of request for transfer of shares were enclosed. The first respondent sent a communication on 18.10.1989 to the 2nd respondent company approving the disposal of shares by 19 of the present ordinary Directors and also 6 of the Ex-ordinary Directors of the 2nd respondent company, subject to certain conditions. The first respondent accordingly effected transfers, but such registration of transfers commenced on 14.10.1989 and concluded on 20.10.1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, the petitioners in these two writ petitions filed the writ petitions for the prayers already extracted. The main ground on which the prayers are made, as found in the affidavits, is that by a convention obtaining in the Company, transfer, of shares belonging to the Directors should be effected only to other members of the families of such Directors and not to strangers and that such convention is being broken by the proposed transfers. It is alleged that the 1st respondent owes a duty to all the Directors, who gave an undertaking to the 1st respondent at the time of taking loan not to transfer their shares as referred to earlier, to prevent the effecting of transfers until the loans are discharged. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the 1st respondent being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it being a State instru-mantality, it is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court with regard to every action of the 1st respondent and in this particular case the 1st respondent has failed to prevent the transfers sought to be made by some of the Directors and shareholders. No doubt an allegation has been made in the affidavits that the proposed transfers affect the interests of the Company substantially but no particulars have been given in either of the affidavits as to how the interest of the company would be affected by the proposed transfers; nor any details have been given in the affidavits as to whether the interests of the 1st respondent would be affected and if so how.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. When the writ petitions were taken up for hearing, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the 1st respondent that the prayers as against the 1st respondent are not sustainable in the form in which they have been made. The objection is really two-fold. The first objection is that even when the writ petitions came up for admission, transfers had already been effected and at any rate the approval of the 1st respondent for such transfers had been given and therefore there could not be a prayer for issue of mandamus to the 1st respondent to prevent the transfers from being effected. In other words, the contention is that the writ petitions had become infruc-tuous on the dates when they came up for admission. The 2nd objection is that there cannot be a mandamus directing the 1st respondent to prevent the transfer of shares held by certain Directors and shareholders in the 2nd respondent company. In other words, the contention is that the first respondent cannot have any say with regard to the legality or validity of transfer of shares, if effected by the 2nd respondent company without the prior approval of the 1st respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It is seen from the undertaking given by the Directors that they agreed with the 1st respondent not to transfer their shares until either of the events mentioned therein takes place. That will not in any way give jurisdiction to the 1st respondent to say that a particular transfer of share is invalid in law. It is certainly open to the 1st respondent, if a transfer is effected without the prior approval of the 1st respondent, to say that the agreement between respondents 1 and 2 has been violated and the 2nd respondent is not entitled to get the benefits of the agreement thereafter. In those circumstances this Court cannot issue a mandamus to the 1st respondent to stop the transfer of shares to be effected by the 2nd respondent Company. Hence I am inclined to uphold the preliminary objection.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the facts, it is already seen that the transfer has been effected with the approval of the 2nd respondent company. It is contended by the petitioners that the approval given by the 1st respondent is vitiated by mala fides. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the fact that the loan was advanced in July, 1989 and the undertaking was taken by the 1st respondent at that time and within a period of three months, they approved all the proposed transfers by some of the Directors to strangers. It is also stated that the approval of the 1st respondent was obtained by the 3rd respondent with his influence over the 1st respondent. This averment found in the affidavit is not sufficient to accept the contention that there is mala fide on the part of the 1st respondent, As pointed out already, unless it is made out in the affidavit that the interests of the first respondent or the interests of the 2nd respondent company were prejudiced by the approval of the proposed transfers, there cannot be any inference of mala fide in the action of the first respondent. According to learned counsel, the undertaking given by 54 Directors would mean that the 1st respondent would hold all the 54 Directors jointly liable and responsible for the discharge of the loan and the 1st respondent is not entitled to release some of them by substituting third parties in their place. I cannot agree with this contention, as the right of the 1st respondent is only to take such steps as are necessary to safeguard its interests in the matter of recovery of loan advanced to the 2nd respondent Company. If the 1st respondent is satisfied that the recovery of loan will not in any manner be prejudiced by the substitution of certain shareholders with third parties, then it is not for the petitioners in the writ petitions or this Court to say that the 1st respondent ought not to have given approval for the transfer of such shares.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned counsel persists by saying that if the action of the 1st respondent is vitiated by mala fides, this Court can certainly give its directions to the 1st respondent as the 1st respondent happens to be an instrumentality of the State. In this connection, learned counsel placed reliance on certain observations made by the Supreme Court of India in L.I.C. of India v. Escorts Ltd. : 1986(8)ECC189 Learned counsel invites my attention to paragraphs 101 and 102 which read thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was however urged by the learned counsel for the company that the Life Insurance Corporation was an instrumentality of the State and was, therefore, debarred by Article 14 from acting arbitrarily. It was therefore, under an obligation to state to the Court its reasons for the resolution once a rule nisi was issued to it. If it failed to disclose its reasons to the Court, the Court would presume that it had no valid reasons to give and its action was, therefore, arbitrary. The learned counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatramny Sardar Singh : (1975)ILLJ399SC , Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India : [1978]2SCR621 , International Airport Authority v. Ramana Dayaram Sheety : (1979)IILLJ217SC and Ajay Hasia : (1981)ILLJ103SC . The learned Attorney General, on the other hand, contended that actions of the State or an instrumentality of the State, which do not properly belong to the field of public law but belong to the field of private law are not liable to be subjected to judicial review. He relied on Q Reilly v. Mackman (1982) 3 A E.R. 1124, Davy v. Spelthome (1983) 3 AE.R. 278, I Congress del parties v. East Serkshire Health Aut(1991) 2 A E.R. 1064 R.hority (1984) 3 A E.R. 425 and Radha Krishna Aggarwal v. State of Bihar : [1977]3SCR249 . While we do find considerable force in the contention of the learned Attorney General it may not be necessary for us to enter into any lengthy discussion of the topic, as we shall presently see. We also desire to warn ourselves against readily referring to English cases on questions of Constitutional law, Administrative Law and Public Law as the law in India in these branches has forged ahead of the law in England, guided as we are by our Constitution and uninhibited as we are by the technical rules which have hampered the development of the English law. While we do not for a moment doubt that every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason and that, in appropriate cases, actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution, we do not construe Article 14 as a charter for judicial review of State actions and to call upon the State to account for its action in its manifold activities by stating reasons for such actions. For example, if the action of the State is political or sovereign in character, the Court will keep away from it. The Court will not debate academic matters or concern itself with the intricacies of trade and commerce. If the action of the State is related to contractual obligation of obligations arising out of the Court, the Court may not ordinarily examine it unless the action has some public law character attached to it. Broadly speaking, the Court will examine actions of State if they pertain to the public law domain and refain from examining them if they pertain to the private law field. The difficulty will lie in demarcating the frontier between the public law domain and the private law field. It is impossible to draw the line with precision and we do not want to attempt it. The question must be decided in each case with reference to the particular action, the activity in which the State or the instrumentality of the State is engaged when performing the action, the Public law or private law character of the action, and a host of other relevant circumstances. When the State or an instrumentality of the State ventures into the corporate world and purchases the shares of a company, it assumes to itself the ordinary role of a shareholder, and dons the robes of a shareholder, with all the rights available to such a shareholder. There is no reason why the State as a shareholder should be expected to state its reasons when it seeks to change management, by a resolution of the Company, like any other shareholder.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In my opinion, the observations made by the Supreme Court of India as extracted above are really against the contention put forwarded by the writ petitioners. The Supreme Court has clearly laid down that even a State instrumentality is entitled to enter into ventures just as a private individual or a business man and when it dons the robes of a shareholder, it will have all the rights available to a shareholder. The last sentence in the passage extracted above puts the matter, beyond any doubt. In view of the dictum, there can be no doubt that the 1st respondent having exercised its power to grant or refuse approval, and in this case granted the approval for transfer of shares, this Court will not have any jurisdiction to say that the 1st respondent has acted erroneously. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, if the matter falls within the private law field, then the Court will have no jurisdiction. In this case, this is a matter, which falls within the private law field, as it is a right accruing to the first respondent out of a contract between the first respondent and the 2nd respondent, and in those circumstances the writ petitions are not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I should point out before parting with these cases that these writ petitions are really a camouflage for enforcing the alleged rights of the petitioners as against another group of shareholders of the same company. Article 226 will not provide an arena for a fight between two private parties. In this case, the 1st respondent has been added as a party only to bring it within the scope of Article 226 apparently. But if the veil is pierced and the real dispute is looked at, it is only between the writ petitioners on the one hand and the persons who seek to transfer their shares to strangers on the other. The basis of the claim of the petitioners is a right of pre-emption available to the members of the family which has to be established only before the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. That cannot be done in these writ petitions, as it is a question of fact which requires evidence to be adduced before any finding is given thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In view of the above reasons, these two writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 2,000 one set.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1990)1MLJ248',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '812570'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D. Sasidharan Vs. Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Article 12 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 1 => 'Article 14',
			(int) 2 => 'Constitutional',
			(int) 3 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 4 => 'Article 226 or',
			(int) 5 => 'Article 32 of the Constitution',
			(int) 6 => 'Article 14',
			(int) 7 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 8 => 'Article 226'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'ORDERSrinivasan',
			(int) 1 => 'Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.',
			(int) 2 => 'Company',
			(int) 3 => 'Company',
			(int) 4 => 'Directors',
			(int) 5 => 'Directors',
			(int) 6 => 'State',
			(int) 7 => 'State',
			(int) 8 => 'Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Directors',
			(int) 10 => 'Company',
			(int) 11 => 'Directors',
			(int) 12 => 'Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Directors',
			(int) 14 => 'Court',
			(int) 15 => 'Court',
			(int) 16 => 'State',
			(int) 17 => 'the Supreme Court of India',
			(int) 18 => 'India v. Escorts Ltd.',
			(int) 19 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 20 => 'State',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Court',
			(int) 25 => 'International Airport Authority',
			(int) 26 => 'State',
			(int) 27 => 'State',
			(int) 28 => 'Reilly v. Mackman',
			(int) 29 => 'Congress',
			(int) 30 => 'State',
			(int) 31 => 'State',
			(int) 32 => 'State',
			(int) 33 => 'State',
			(int) 34 => 'State',
			(int) 35 => 'Court',
			(int) 36 => 'Court',
			(int) 37 => 'State',
			(int) 38 => 'Court',
			(int) 39 => 'Court',
			(int) 40 => 'Court',
			(int) 41 => 'State',
			(int) 42 => 'State',
			(int) 43 => 'State',
			(int) 44 => 'State',
			(int) 45 => 'State',
			(int) 46 => 'State',
			(int) 47 => 'Company',
			(int) 48 => 'the Supreme Court of India',
			(int) 49 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 50 => 'State',
			(int) 51 => 'Court',
			(int) 52 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 53 => 'Court'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'English'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '13883',
			(int) 1 => '1989',
			(int) 2 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 3 => '72',
			(int) 4 => '7',
			(int) 5 => '10',
			(int) 6 => '11',
			(int) 7 => '12',
			(int) 8 => '14',
			(int) 9 => '18',
			(int) 10 => '21',
			(int) 11 => '22',
			(int) 12 => '24',
			(int) 13 => '25',
			(int) 14 => '35',
			(int) 15 => '36',
			(int) 16 => '37',
			(int) 17 => '38',
			(int) 18 => '41',
			(int) 19 => '44',
			(int) 20 => '14134',
			(int) 21 => '1989',
			(int) 22 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 23 => 'the 25th of September, 1989',
			(int) 24 => 'the 25th of September',
			(int) 25 => 'the 2nd',
			(int) 26 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 27 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 28 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 29 => '10.10.1989',
			(int) 30 => '18.10.1989',
			(int) 31 => '14.10.1989',
			(int) 32 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 33 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 34 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 35 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 36 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 37 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 38 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 39 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 40 => 'the 2nd',
			(int) 41 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 42 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 43 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 44 => 'July, 1989',
			(int) 45 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 46 => 'a period of',
			(int) 47 => 'three months',
			(int) 48 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 49 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 50 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 51 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 52 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 53 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 54 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 55 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 56 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 57 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 58 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 59 => '1982',
			(int) 60 => '1124',
			(int) 61 => '1983',
			(int) 62 => '1064',
			(int) 63 => '1984',
			(int) 64 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 65 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 66 => 'the 1st'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2nd',
			(int) 1 => '2nd',
			(int) 2 => '2nd',
			(int) 3 => '2nd',
			(int) 4 => '2nd',
			(int) 5 => '2nd',
			(int) 6 => '2nd',
			(int) 7 => 'first',
			(int) 8 => 'third',
			(int) 9 => 'first',
			(int) 10 => 'first',
			(int) 11 => '2nd',
			(int) 12 => '2nd',
			(int) 13 => 'first',
			(int) 14 => '1st',
			(int) 15 => '1st',
			(int) 16 => 'first',
			(int) 17 => '1st',
			(int) 18 => '2nd',
			(int) 19 => 'first',
			(int) 20 => '2nd',
			(int) 21 => '1st',
			(int) 22 => '1st',
			(int) 23 => '2nd',
			(int) 24 => '1st',
			(int) 25 => '2nd',
			(int) 26 => '2nd',
			(int) 27 => '1st',
			(int) 28 => '3rd',
			(int) 29 => 'first',
			(int) 30 => '2nd',
			(int) 31 => 'first',
			(int) 32 => 'third',
			(int) 33 => '2nd',
			(int) 34 => 'third',
			(int) 35 => 'first',
			(int) 36 => 'first',
			(int) 37 => '2nd'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Nos',
			(int) 1 => 'Nos',
			(int) 2 => 'Directors',
			(int) 3 => 'Directors',
			(int) 4 => 'Directors',
			(int) 5 => 'Directors',
			(int) 6 => 'nisi',
			(int) 7 => 'Sukhdev Singh v.',
			(int) 8 => 'Bhagatramny Sardar',
			(int) 9 => 'Menaka Gandhi',
			(int) 10 => 'Ramana Dayaram',
			(int) 11 => 'Ajay Hasia',
			(int) 12 => 'Davy',
			(int) 13 => 'Radha Krishna Aggarwal',
			(int) 14 => 'Administrative Law and Public Law'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '3 to 46',
			(int) 1 => '90',
			(int) 2 => '4',
			(int) 3 => '121',
			(int) 4 => '1989.3',
			(int) 5 => '81',
			(int) 6 => '81,00,000',
			(int) 7 => '19',
			(int) 8 => '6',
			(int) 9 => '20.10.1989.6',
			(int) 10 => 'two',
			(int) 11 => 'two-fold',
			(int) 12 => '1',
			(int) 13 => '54',
			(int) 14 => '54',
			(int) 15 => '101',
			(int) 16 => '102',
			(int) 17 => '1975)ILLJ399SC',
			(int) 18 => '1978]2SCR621',
			(int) 19 => '1981)ILLJ103SC',
			(int) 20 => '3',
			(int) 21 => '3',
			(int) 22 => '278',
			(int) 23 => '2',
			(int) 24 => '3',
			(int) 25 => '1977]3SCR249',
			(int) 26 => 'two',
			(int) 27 => 'two',
			(int) 28 => '2,000'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'L.I.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'East Serkshire Health',
			(int) 2 => 'India',
			(int) 3 => 'England'
		),
		'LANGUAGE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'English'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '812570',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'D. Sasidharan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Sasidharan Vs. Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Radha Krishna Aggarwal v. State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1989-11-09',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Srinivasan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing by consent of parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prayer in W.P. No. 13883 of 1989 reads as follows:-to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents and respondents Nos. 3 to 46, 72 and 90 being the Directors of the Company from transferring the shares held by the proposed transferors being respondents Nos. 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 44, to 121 held by them in the 2nd respondent company to any other person who is not a shareholder of the 2nd respondent company..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The prayer in W.P. No. 14134 of 1989 reads as follows:to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to forbear the transfer of any shares of the 2nd respondent company from the existing shareholders to any other person, which transfer is sought to be effected subsequent to the 25th of September, 1989 by deposit of the share certificates along with the transfer applications in the 2nd respondent company on or after the 25th of September, 1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are shareholders/Directors in the 2nd respondent company, viz., Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., It is not necessary to refer in detail to the various facts set out in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions. The facts which are relevant can be stated in a very short compass.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The 2nd respondent company has obtained a loan of about Rs. 81 lakhs from the 1st respondent, besides other loans with which these writ petitions are not concerned. While taking the loan of Rs. 81,00,000 and odd, the Directors of the 2nd respondent Company gave an undertaking to the 1st respondent that they shall not transfer, assign, dispose of, pledge, charge or create any lien or in any way encumber their existing or future shareholders in the company in favour of any person so long as any money remained due by the Company to the first respondent or till the project was duly completed whichever was later without the 1st respondent's prior written approval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Some of the Directors as well as shareholders wanted to transfer their shares to third parties and applied to the first respondent for permission to effect such transfers, by letter dated 10.10.1989. All the letters of request for transfer of shares were enclosed. The first respondent sent a communication on 18.10.1989 to the 2nd respondent company approving the disposal of shares by 19 of the present ordinary Directors and also 6 of the Ex-ordinary Directors of the 2nd respondent company, subject to certain conditions. The first respondent accordingly effected transfers, but such registration of transfers commenced on 14.10.1989 and concluded on 20.10.1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, the petitioners in these two writ petitions filed the writ petitions for the prayers already extracted. The main ground on which the prayers are made, as found in the affidavits, is that by a convention obtaining in the Company, transfer, of shares belonging to the Directors should be effected only to other members of the families of such Directors and not to strangers and that such convention is being broken by the proposed transfers. It is alleged that the 1st respondent owes a duty to all the Directors, who gave an undertaking to the 1st respondent at the time of taking loan not to transfer their shares as referred to earlier, to prevent the effecting of transfers until the loans are discharged. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the 1st respondent being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it being a State instru-mantality, it is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court with regard to every action of the 1st respondent and in this particular case the 1st respondent has failed to prevent the transfers sought to be made by some of the Directors and shareholders. No doubt an allegation has been made in the affidavits that the proposed transfers affect the interests of the Company substantially but no particulars have been given in either of the affidavits as to how the interest of the company would be affected by the proposed transfers; nor any details have been given in the affidavits as to whether the interests of the 1st respondent would be affected and if so how.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. When the writ petitions were taken up for hearing, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the 1st respondent that the prayers as against the 1st respondent are not sustainable in the form in which they have been made. The objection is really two-fold. The first objection is that even when the writ petitions came up for admission, transfers had already been effected and at any rate the approval of the 1st respondent for such transfers had been given and therefore there could not be a prayer for issue of mandamus to the 1st respondent to prevent the transfers from being effected. In other words, the contention is that the writ petitions had become infruc-tuous on the dates when they came up for admission. The 2nd objection is that there cannot be a mandamus directing the 1st respondent to prevent the transfer of shares held by certain Directors and shareholders in the 2nd respondent company. In other words, the contention is that the first respondent cannot have any say with regard to the legality or validity of transfer of shares, if effected by the 2nd respondent company without the prior approval of the 1st respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It is seen from the undertaking given by the Directors that they agreed with the 1st respondent not to transfer their shares until either of the events mentioned therein takes place. That will not in any way give jurisdiction to the 1st respondent to say that a particular transfer of share is invalid in law. It is certainly open to the 1st respondent, if a transfer is effected without the prior approval of the 1st respondent, to say that the agreement between respondents 1 and 2 has been violated and the 2nd respondent is not entitled to get the benefits of the agreement thereafter. In those circumstances this Court cannot issue a mandamus to the 1st respondent to stop the transfer of shares to be effected by the 2nd respondent Company. Hence I am inclined to uphold the preliminary objection.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the facts, it is already seen that the transfer has been effected with the approval of the 2nd respondent company. It is contended by the petitioners that the approval given by the 1st respondent is vitiated by mala fides. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the fact that the loan was advanced in July, 1989 and the undertaking was taken by the 1st respondent at that time and within a period of three months, they approved all the proposed transfers by some of the Directors to strangers. It is also stated that the approval of the 1st respondent was obtained by the 3rd respondent with his influence over the 1st respondent. This averment found in the affidavit is not sufficient to accept the contention that there is mala fide on the part of the 1st respondent, As pointed out already, unless it is made out in the affidavit that the interests of the first respondent or the interests of the 2nd respondent company were prejudiced by the approval of the proposed transfers, there cannot be any inference of mala fide in the action of the first respondent. According to learned counsel, the undertaking given by 54 Directors would mean that the 1st respondent would hold all the 54 Directors jointly liable and responsible for the discharge of the loan and the 1st respondent is not entitled to release some of them by substituting third parties in their place. I cannot agree with this contention, as the right of the 1st respondent is only to take such steps as are necessary to safeguard its interests in the matter of recovery of loan advanced to the 2nd respondent Company. If the 1st respondent is satisfied that the recovery of loan will not in any manner be prejudiced by the substitution of certain shareholders with third parties, then it is not for the petitioners in the writ petitions or this Court to say that the 1st respondent ought not to have given approval for the transfer of such shares.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned counsel persists by saying that if the action of the 1st respondent is vitiated by mala fides, this Court can certainly give its directions to the 1st respondent as the 1st respondent happens to be an instrumentality of the State. In this connection, learned counsel placed reliance on certain observations made by the Supreme Court of India in L.I.C. of India v. Escorts Ltd. : 1986(8)ECC189 Learned counsel invites my attention to paragraphs 101 and 102 which read thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was however urged by the learned counsel for the company that the Life Insurance Corporation was an instrumentality of the State and was, therefore, debarred by Article 14 from acting arbitrarily. It was therefore, under an obligation to state to the Court its reasons for the resolution once a rule nisi was issued to it. If it failed to disclose its reasons to the Court, the Court would presume that it had no valid reasons to give and its action was, therefore, arbitrary. The learned counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatramny Sardar Singh : (1975)ILLJ399SC , Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India : [1978]2SCR621 , International Airport Authority v. Ramana Dayaram Sheety : (1979)IILLJ217SC and Ajay Hasia : (1981)ILLJ103SC . The learned Attorney General, on the other hand, contended that actions of the State or an instrumentality of the State, which do not properly belong to the field of public law but belong to the field of private law are not liable to be subjected to judicial review. He relied on Q Reilly v. Mackman (1982) 3 A E.R. 1124, Davy v. Spelthome (1983) 3 AE.R. 278, I Congress del parties v. East Serkshire Health Aut(1991) 2 A E.R. 1064 R.hority (1984) 3 A E.R. 425 and Radha Krishna Aggarwal v. State of Bihar : [1977]3SCR249 . While we do find considerable force in the contention of the learned Attorney General it may not be necessary for us to enter into any lengthy discussion of the topic, as we shall presently see. We also desire to warn ourselves against readily referring to English cases on questions of Constitutional law, Administrative Law and Public Law as the law in India in these branches has forged ahead of the law in England, guided as we are by our Constitution and uninhibited as we are by the technical rules which have hampered the development of the English law. While we do not for a moment doubt that every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason and that, in appropriate cases, actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution, we do not construe Article 14 as a charter for judicial review of State actions and to call upon the State to account for its action in its manifold activities by stating reasons for such actions. For example, if the action of the State is political or sovereign in character, the Court will keep away from it. The Court will not debate academic matters or concern itself with the intricacies of trade and commerce. If the action of the State is related to contractual obligation of obligations arising out of the Court, the Court may not ordinarily examine it unless the action has some public law character attached to it. Broadly speaking, the Court will examine actions of State if they pertain to the public law domain and refain from examining them if they pertain to the private law field. The difficulty will lie in demarcating the frontier between the public law domain and the private law field. It is impossible to draw the line with precision and we do not want to attempt it. The question must be decided in each case with reference to the particular action, the activity in which the State or the instrumentality of the State is engaged when performing the action, the Public law or private law character of the action, and a host of other relevant circumstances. When the State or an instrumentality of the State ventures into the corporate world and purchases the shares of a company, it assumes to itself the ordinary role of a shareholder, and dons the robes of a shareholder, with all the rights available to such a shareholder. There is no reason why the State as a shareholder should be expected to state its reasons when it seeks to change management, by a resolution of the Company, like any other shareholder.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In my opinion, the observations made by the Supreme Court of India as extracted above are really against the contention put forwarded by the writ petitioners. The Supreme Court has clearly laid down that even a State instrumentality is entitled to enter into ventures just as a private individual or a business man and when it dons the robes of a shareholder, it will have all the rights available to a shareholder. The last sentence in the passage extracted above puts the matter, beyond any doubt. In view of the dictum, there can be no doubt that the 1st respondent having exercised its power to grant or refuse approval, and in this case granted the approval for transfer of shares, this Court will not have any jurisdiction to say that the 1st respondent has acted erroneously. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, if the matter falls within the private law field, then the Court will have no jurisdiction. In this case, this is a matter, which falls within the private law field, as it is a right accruing to the first respondent out of a contract between the first respondent and the 2nd respondent, and in those circumstances the writ petitions are not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I should point out before parting with these cases that these writ petitions are really a camouflage for enforcing the alleged rights of the petitioners as against another group of shareholders of the same company. Article 226 will not provide an arena for a fight between two private parties. In this case, the 1st respondent has been added as a party only to bring it within the scope of Article 226 apparently. But if the veil is pierced and the real dispute is looked at, it is only between the writ petitioners on the one hand and the persons who seek to transfer their shares to strangers on the other. The basis of the claim of the petitioners is a right of pre-emption available to the members of the family which has to be established only before the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. That cannot be done in these writ petitions, as it is a question of fact which requires evidence to be adduced before any finding is given thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In view of the above reasons, these two writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 2,000 one set.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1990)1MLJ248',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '812570'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D. Sasidharan Vs. Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Article 12 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 1 => 'Article 14',
		(int) 2 => 'Constitutional',
		(int) 3 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 4 => 'Article 226 or',
		(int) 5 => 'Article 32 of the Constitution',
		(int) 6 => 'Article 14',
		(int) 7 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 8 => 'Article 226'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'ORDERSrinivasan',
		(int) 1 => 'Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.',
		(int) 2 => 'Company',
		(int) 3 => 'Company',
		(int) 4 => 'Directors',
		(int) 5 => 'Directors',
		(int) 6 => 'State',
		(int) 7 => 'State',
		(int) 8 => 'Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Directors',
		(int) 10 => 'Company',
		(int) 11 => 'Directors',
		(int) 12 => 'Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Directors',
		(int) 14 => 'Court',
		(int) 15 => 'Court',
		(int) 16 => 'State',
		(int) 17 => 'the Supreme Court of India',
		(int) 18 => 'India v. Escorts Ltd.',
		(int) 19 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 20 => 'State',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Court',
		(int) 25 => 'International Airport Authority',
		(int) 26 => 'State',
		(int) 27 => 'State',
		(int) 28 => 'Reilly v. Mackman',
		(int) 29 => 'Congress',
		(int) 30 => 'State',
		(int) 31 => 'State',
		(int) 32 => 'State',
		(int) 33 => 'State',
		(int) 34 => 'State',
		(int) 35 => 'Court',
		(int) 36 => 'Court',
		(int) 37 => 'State',
		(int) 38 => 'Court',
		(int) 39 => 'Court',
		(int) 40 => 'Court',
		(int) 41 => 'State',
		(int) 42 => 'State',
		(int) 43 => 'State',
		(int) 44 => 'State',
		(int) 45 => 'State',
		(int) 46 => 'State',
		(int) 47 => 'Company',
		(int) 48 => 'the Supreme Court of India',
		(int) 49 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 50 => 'State',
		(int) 51 => 'Court',
		(int) 52 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 53 => 'Court'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'English'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '13883',
		(int) 1 => '1989',
		(int) 2 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 3 => '72',
		(int) 4 => '7',
		(int) 5 => '10',
		(int) 6 => '11',
		(int) 7 => '12',
		(int) 8 => '14',
		(int) 9 => '18',
		(int) 10 => '21',
		(int) 11 => '22',
		(int) 12 => '24',
		(int) 13 => '25',
		(int) 14 => '35',
		(int) 15 => '36',
		(int) 16 => '37',
		(int) 17 => '38',
		(int) 18 => '41',
		(int) 19 => '44',
		(int) 20 => '14134',
		(int) 21 => '1989',
		(int) 22 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 23 => 'the 25th of September, 1989',
		(int) 24 => 'the 25th of September',
		(int) 25 => 'the 2nd',
		(int) 26 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 27 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 28 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 29 => '10.10.1989',
		(int) 30 => '18.10.1989',
		(int) 31 => '14.10.1989',
		(int) 32 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 33 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 34 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 35 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 36 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 37 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 38 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 39 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 40 => 'the 2nd',
		(int) 41 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 42 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 43 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 44 => 'July, 1989',
		(int) 45 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 46 => 'a period of',
		(int) 47 => 'three months',
		(int) 48 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 49 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 50 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 51 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 52 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 53 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 54 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 55 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 56 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 57 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 58 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 59 => '1982',
		(int) 60 => '1124',
		(int) 61 => '1983',
		(int) 62 => '1064',
		(int) 63 => '1984',
		(int) 64 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 65 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 66 => 'the 1st'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2nd',
		(int) 1 => '2nd',
		(int) 2 => '2nd',
		(int) 3 => '2nd',
		(int) 4 => '2nd',
		(int) 5 => '2nd',
		(int) 6 => '2nd',
		(int) 7 => 'first',
		(int) 8 => 'third',
		(int) 9 => 'first',
		(int) 10 => 'first',
		(int) 11 => '2nd',
		(int) 12 => '2nd',
		(int) 13 => 'first',
		(int) 14 => '1st',
		(int) 15 => '1st',
		(int) 16 => 'first',
		(int) 17 => '1st',
		(int) 18 => '2nd',
		(int) 19 => 'first',
		(int) 20 => '2nd',
		(int) 21 => '1st',
		(int) 22 => '1st',
		(int) 23 => '2nd',
		(int) 24 => '1st',
		(int) 25 => '2nd',
		(int) 26 => '2nd',
		(int) 27 => '1st',
		(int) 28 => '3rd',
		(int) 29 => 'first',
		(int) 30 => '2nd',
		(int) 31 => 'first',
		(int) 32 => 'third',
		(int) 33 => '2nd',
		(int) 34 => 'third',
		(int) 35 => 'first',
		(int) 36 => 'first',
		(int) 37 => '2nd'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Nos',
		(int) 1 => 'Nos',
		(int) 2 => 'Directors',
		(int) 3 => 'Directors',
		(int) 4 => 'Directors',
		(int) 5 => 'Directors',
		(int) 6 => 'nisi',
		(int) 7 => 'Sukhdev Singh v.',
		(int) 8 => 'Bhagatramny Sardar',
		(int) 9 => 'Menaka Gandhi',
		(int) 10 => 'Ramana Dayaram',
		(int) 11 => 'Ajay Hasia',
		(int) 12 => 'Davy',
		(int) 13 => 'Radha Krishna Aggarwal',
		(int) 14 => 'Administrative Law and Public Law'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '3 to 46',
		(int) 1 => '90',
		(int) 2 => '4',
		(int) 3 => '121',
		(int) 4 => '1989.3',
		(int) 5 => '81',
		(int) 6 => '81,00,000',
		(int) 7 => '19',
		(int) 8 => '6',
		(int) 9 => '20.10.1989.6',
		(int) 10 => 'two',
		(int) 11 => 'two-fold',
		(int) 12 => '1',
		(int) 13 => '54',
		(int) 14 => '54',
		(int) 15 => '101',
		(int) 16 => '102',
		(int) 17 => '1975)ILLJ399SC',
		(int) 18 => '1978]2SCR621',
		(int) 19 => '1981)ILLJ103SC',
		(int) 20 => '3',
		(int) 21 => '3',
		(int) 22 => '278',
		(int) 23 => '2',
		(int) 24 => '3',
		(int) 25 => '1977]3SCR249',
		(int) 26 => 'two',
		(int) 27 => 'two',
		(int) 28 => '2,000'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'L.I.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'East Serkshire Health',
		(int) 2 => 'India',
		(int) 3 => 'England'
	),
	'LANGUAGE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'English'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '812570',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'D. Sasidharan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Sasidharan Vs. Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Radha Krishna Aggarwal v. State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1989-11-09',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Srinivasan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing by consent of parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prayer in W.P. No. 13883 of 1989 reads as follows:-to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents and respondents Nos. 3 to 46, 72 and 90 being the Directors of the Company from transferring the shares held by the proposed transferors being respondents Nos. 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 44, to 121 held by them in the 2nd respondent company to any other person who is not a shareholder of the 2nd respondent company..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The prayer in W.P. No. 14134 of 1989 reads as follows:to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to forbear the transfer of any shares of the 2nd respondent company from the existing shareholders to any other person, which transfer is sought to be effected subsequent to the 25th of September, 1989 by deposit of the share certificates along with the transfer applications in the 2nd respondent company on or after the 25th of September, 1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are shareholders/Directors in the 2nd respondent company, viz., Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., It is not necessary to refer in detail to the various facts set out in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions. The facts which are relevant can be stated in a very short compass.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The 2nd respondent company has obtained a loan of about Rs. 81 lakhs from the 1st respondent, besides other loans with which these writ petitions are not concerned. While taking the loan of Rs. 81,00,000 and odd, the Directors of the 2nd respondent Company gave an undertaking to the 1st respondent that they shall not transfer, assign, dispose of, pledge, charge or create any lien or in any way encumber their existing or future shareholders in the company in favour of any person so long as any money remained due by the Company to the first respondent or till the project was duly completed whichever was later without the 1st respondent's prior written approval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Some of the Directors as well as shareholders wanted to transfer their shares to third parties and applied to the first respondent for permission to effect such transfers, by letter dated 10.10.1989. All the letters of request for transfer of shares were enclosed. The first respondent sent a communication on 18.10.1989 to the 2nd respondent company approving the disposal of shares by 19 of the present ordinary Directors and also 6 of the Ex-ordinary Directors of the 2nd respondent company, subject to certain conditions. The first respondent accordingly effected transfers, but such registration of transfers commenced on 14.10.1989 and concluded on 20.10.1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, the petitioners in these two writ petitions filed the writ petitions for the prayers already extracted. The main ground on which the prayers are made, as found in the affidavits, is that by a convention obtaining in the Company, transfer, of shares belonging to the Directors should be effected only to other members of the families of such Directors and not to strangers and that such convention is being broken by the proposed transfers. It is alleged that the 1st respondent owes a duty to all the Directors, who gave an undertaking to the 1st respondent at the time of taking loan not to transfer their shares as referred to earlier, to prevent the effecting of transfers until the loans are discharged. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the 1st respondent being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it being a State instru-mantality, it is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court with regard to every action of the 1st respondent and in this particular case the 1st respondent has failed to prevent the transfers sought to be made by some of the Directors and shareholders. No doubt an allegation has been made in the affidavits that the proposed transfers affect the interests of the Company substantially but no particulars have been given in either of the affidavits as to how the interest of the company would be affected by the proposed transfers; nor any details have been given in the affidavits as to whether the interests of the 1st respondent would be affected and if so how.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. When the writ petitions were taken up for hearing, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the 1st respondent that the prayers as against the 1st respondent are not sustainable in the form in which they have been made. The objection is really two-fold. The first objection is that even when the writ petitions came up for admission, transfers had already been effected and at any rate the approval of the 1st respondent for such transfers had been given and therefore there could not be a prayer for issue of mandamus to the 1st respondent to prevent the transfers from being effected. In other words, the contention is that the writ petitions had become infruc-tuous on the dates when they came up for admission. The 2nd objection is that there cannot be a mandamus directing the 1st respondent to prevent the transfer of shares held by certain Directors and shareholders in the 2nd respondent company. In other words, the contention is that the first respondent cannot have any say with regard to the legality or validity of transfer of shares, if effected by the 2nd respondent company without the prior approval of the 1st respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It is seen from the undertaking given by the Directors that they agreed with the 1st respondent not to transfer their shares until either of the events mentioned therein takes place. That will not in any way give jurisdiction to the 1st respondent to say that a particular transfer of share is invalid in law. It is certainly open to the 1st respondent, if a transfer is effected without the prior approval of the 1st respondent, to say that the agreement between respondents 1 and 2 has been violated and the 2nd respondent is not entitled to get the benefits of the agreement thereafter. In those circumstances this Court cannot issue a mandamus to the 1st respondent to stop the transfer of shares to be effected by the 2nd respondent Company. Hence I am inclined to uphold the preliminary objection.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the facts, it is already seen that the transfer has been effected with the approval of the 2nd respondent company. It is contended by the petitioners that the approval given by the 1st respondent is vitiated by mala fides. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the fact that the loan was advanced in July, 1989 and the undertaking was taken by the 1st respondent at that time and within a period of three months, they approved all the proposed transfers by some of the Directors to strangers. It is also stated that the approval of the 1st respondent was obtained by the 3rd respondent with his influence over the 1st respondent. This averment found in the affidavit is not sufficient to accept the contention that there is mala fide on the part of the 1st respondent, As pointed out already, unless it is made out in the affidavit that the interests of the first respondent or the interests of the 2nd respondent company were prejudiced by the approval of the proposed transfers, there cannot be any inference of mala fide in the action of the first respondent. According to learned counsel, the undertaking given by 54 Directors would mean that the 1st respondent would hold all the 54 Directors jointly liable and responsible for the discharge of the loan and the 1st respondent is not entitled to release some of them by substituting third parties in their place. I cannot agree with this contention, as the right of the 1st respondent is only to take such steps as are necessary to safeguard its interests in the matter of recovery of loan advanced to the 2nd respondent Company. If the 1st respondent is satisfied that the recovery of loan will not in any manner be prejudiced by the substitution of certain shareholders with third parties, then it is not for the petitioners in the writ petitions or this Court to say that the 1st respondent ought not to have given approval for the transfer of such shares.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned counsel persists by saying that if the action of the 1st respondent is vitiated by mala fides, this Court can certainly give its directions to the 1st respondent as the 1st respondent happens to be an instrumentality of the State. In this connection, learned counsel placed reliance on certain observations made by the Supreme Court of India in L.I.C. of India v. Escorts Ltd. : 1986(8)ECC189 Learned counsel invites my attention to paragraphs 101 and 102 which read thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was however urged by the learned counsel for the company that the Life Insurance Corporation was an instrumentality of the State and was, therefore, debarred by Article 14 from acting arbitrarily. It was therefore, under an obligation to state to the Court its reasons for the resolution once a rule nisi was issued to it. If it failed to disclose its reasons to the Court, the Court would presume that it had no valid reasons to give and its action was, therefore, arbitrary. The learned counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatramny Sardar Singh : (1975)ILLJ399SC , Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India : [1978]2SCR621 , International Airport Authority v. Ramana Dayaram Sheety : (1979)IILLJ217SC and Ajay Hasia : (1981)ILLJ103SC . The learned Attorney General, on the other hand, contended that actions of the State or an instrumentality of the State, which do not properly belong to the field of public law but belong to the field of private law are not liable to be subjected to judicial review. He relied on Q Reilly v. Mackman (1982) 3 A E.R. 1124, Davy v. Spelthome (1983) 3 AE.R. 278, I Congress del parties v. East Serkshire Health Aut(1991) 2 A E.R. 1064 R.hority (1984) 3 A E.R. 425 and Radha Krishna Aggarwal v. State of Bihar : [1977]3SCR249 . While we do find considerable force in the contention of the learned Attorney General it may not be necessary for us to enter into any lengthy discussion of the topic, as we shall presently see. We also desire to warn ourselves against readily referring to English cases on questions of Constitutional law, Administrative Law and Public Law as the law in India in these branches has forged ahead of the law in England, guided as we are by our Constitution and uninhibited as we are by the technical rules which have hampered the development of the English law. While we do not for a moment doubt that every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason and that, in appropriate cases, actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution, we do not construe Article 14 as a charter for judicial review of State actions and to call upon the State to account for its action in its manifold activities by stating reasons for such actions. For example, if the action of the State is political or sovereign in character, the Court will keep away from it. The Court will not debate academic matters or concern itself with the intricacies of trade and commerce. If the action of the State is related to contractual obligation of obligations arising out of the Court, the Court may not ordinarily examine it unless the action has some public law character attached to it. Broadly speaking, the Court will examine actions of State if they pertain to the public law domain and refain from examining them if they pertain to the private law field. The difficulty will lie in demarcating the frontier between the public law domain and the private law field. It is impossible to draw the line with precision and we do not want to attempt it. The question must be decided in each case with reference to the particular action, the activity in which the State or the instrumentality of the State is engaged when performing the action, the Public law or private law character of the action, and a host of other relevant circumstances. When the State or an instrumentality of the State ventures into the corporate world and purchases the shares of a company, it assumes to itself the ordinary role of a shareholder, and dons the robes of a shareholder, with all the rights available to such a shareholder. There is no reason why the State as a shareholder should be expected to state its reasons when it seeks to change management, by a resolution of the Company, like any other shareholder.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In my opinion, the observations made by the Supreme Court of India as extracted above are really against the contention put forwarded by the writ petitioners. The Supreme Court has clearly laid down that even a State instrumentality is entitled to enter into ventures just as a private individual or a business man and when it dons the robes of a shareholder, it will have all the rights available to a shareholder. The last sentence in the passage extracted above puts the matter, beyond any doubt. In view of the dictum, there can be no doubt that the 1st respondent having exercised its power to grant or refuse approval, and in this case granted the approval for transfer of shares, this Court will not have any jurisdiction to say that the 1st respondent has acted erroneously. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, if the matter falls within the private law field, then the Court will have no jurisdiction. In this case, this is a matter, which falls within the private law field, as it is a right accruing to the first respondent out of a contract between the first respondent and the 2nd respondent, and in those circumstances the writ petitions are not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I should point out before parting with these cases that these writ petitions are really a camouflage for enforcing the alleged rights of the petitioners as against another group of shareholders of the same company. Article 226 will not provide an arena for a fight between two private parties. In this case, the 1st respondent has been added as a party only to bring it within the scope of Article 226 apparently. But if the veil is pierced and the real dispute is looked at, it is only between the writ petitioners on the one hand and the persons who seek to transfer their shares to strangers on the other. The basis of the claim of the petitioners is a right of pre-emption available to the members of the family which has to be established only before the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. That cannot be done in these writ petitions, as it is a question of fact which requires evidence to be adduced before any finding is given thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In view of the above reasons, these two writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 2,000 one set.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1990)1MLJ248',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '812570'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Article 12 of the Constitution of India, Article 14, Constitutional, Constitution, Article 226 or, Article 32 of the Constitution, Article 14, Article 226, Article 226

ORG: ORDERSrinivasan, Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., Company, Company, Directors, Directors, State, State, Court, Directors, Company, Directors, Court, Directors, Court, Court, State, the Supreme Court of India, India v. Escorts Ltd., the Life Insurance Corporation, State, Court, Court, Court, Court, International Airport Authority, State, State, Reilly v. Mackman, Congress, State, State, State, State, State, Court, Court, State, Court, Court, Court, State, State, State, State, State, State, Company, the Supreme Court of India, The Supreme Court, State, Court, the Supreme Court, Court

NORP: J.1, English

DATE: 13883, 1989, the 1st, 72, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 44, 14134, 1989, the 1st, the 25th of September, 1989, the 25th of September, the 2nd, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, 10.10.1989, 18.10.1989, 14.10.1989, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 2nd, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, July, 1989, the 1st, a period of, three months, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, 1982, 1124, 1983, 1064, 1984, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st

ORDINAL: 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, first, third, first, first, 2nd, 2nd, first, 1st, 1st, first, 1st, 2nd, first, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, first, 2nd, first, third, 2nd, third, first, first, 2nd

PERSON: Nos, Nos, Directors, Directors, Directors, Directors, nisi, Sukhdev Singh v., Bhagatramny Sardar, Menaka Gandhi, Ramana Dayaram, Ajay Hasia, Davy, Radha Krishna Aggarwal, Administrative Law and Public Law

CARDINAL: 3 to 46, 90, 4, 121, 1989.3, 81, 81,00,000, 19, 6, 20.10.1989.6, two, two-fold, 1, 54, 54, 101, 102, 1975)ILLJ399SC, 1978]2SCR621, 1981)ILLJ103SC, 3, 3, 278, 2, 3, 1977]3SCR249, two, two, 2,000

GPE: L.I.C., East Serkshire Health, India, England

LANGUAGE: English