Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-12-1958
Reported in : AIR1959P& H352; [1960]30CompCas300(P& H)
ORDERTek Chand, J.1. This is a petition under Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, which is analogous to Section 155 of the Companies Act of 1956. There aretwo petitioners. The first petitioner Bhagat Singh claimed to have 41 shares of Rs. 100/- each in the'Piar Bus Service Limited, Amritsar. This amount, he claimed to have paid by giving to the Company two motor lorries of the value of Rs. 4,100/- and heclaims himself to be a holder of fully paid up shares.2. The second petitioner is Hardev Singh who had acquired 100 shares of the Company of the value of Rs. 100/- each and had paid the entire amount of Rs. 10,000/- on these shares. The grievance of the two petitioners is that their respective shares were illegally forfeited by the Company and they were transferred to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 andtheir names have been scored out from the register of members of the Company. They have prayedthat this Court should pass an order directing the respondent-Company to enter the names of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-10-1958
Reported in : AIR1958P& H409
A.N. Bhandari, C.J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution raises the question whether an Election Tribunal is justified in declining to determine certain preliminary questions of law under the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which if decided in favour of the party objecting would dispense with any further trial or at any rate with the trial of some substantial issue in the case.2. Partap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister of the Punjab, was elected a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Sarhali Constituency of the Amritsar District defeating his rival candidate S. Gurmej Singh by a majority of over 20,000 votes.3. On 11-4-1957 S. Gurmej Singh presented an election petition in which he challenged the election of S. Partap Singh on a number of grounds, among others, being (1) that the nomination paper filed by one Santa Singh was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer, and (2) that S. Partap Singh had obtained the assistance of l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-27-1958
Reported in : AIR1959P& H297
..... application to be transposed as an appellant was being argued.therefore it must be held that the defendants have failed to prove that at the time of the accident the vehicle was net being used as a private passenger vehicle. in any case the misuser of the vehicle at the time of the accident will not take the policy of insurance out of the purview of section 95(2) (c), of the motor vehicles act ..... insurance may be sub-divided into (a) personal accident insurance, (b) property accident insurance and (c) liability insurance. a policy of motor car insurance serves all these three purposes. in the present case we are concerned with liability insurance only. only parties to the insurance can enforce its terms: vandepitte v. preferred accident insurance corporation of new york, 193jac 70. , , .obviously the primary object of the insurance ..... can be measured. in birsingh v. sm. hashi rashi banerjee, air 1956 cal.555. the judges adopted 16 years' purchase forcapitalising the ..... dass was involved in the accident in which atma ram was-injured and lost his life.(his lordship on a consideration of the evidence held that the injuries to atma ram ..... . i am, therefore, of the opinion that the liability of the company is co-extensive with that of malik chand defendant. this contention, therefore, also fails.42. no other point was argued before us and the correctness of the decision on issues nos: 7 and 8 was conceded before us.43 .....
Tag this Judgment!