Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad725
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The facts which led up to the suit out of which this appeal arises are not in dispute. Defendant 1 is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. The plaintiff purchased from defendants 2 to 12, who were shareholders of the company, a total number of 172 shares and applied to the company to register the transfer of the shares in his name in the books of the company. On 9th January 1945, the company wrote to the plaintiff that the Board of Directors of the company had refused to register the shares purchased by the plaintiff in his name at a meeting held on 5th January 1945. The share certificates and the transfer deeds were therefore returned to the plaintiff On 19th January 1945 the plaintiff wrote to the company alleging that the Directors' refusal to register the transfers was arbitrary, unjust and opposed to law and gave them notice that unless they recognised the transits in his favour and registered them he would seek...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad820; (1950)IIMLJ163
Subba Rao, J. 1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the District Judge of North Arcot in O. S. No. 7 of 1945, a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale. The facts are rattier complicated, but it is necessary to give a resume for a correct appreciation of the contentious of the parties. One B. S. Muniswami Appa filed O. S. No. 125 of 1920 on the file of the District Court of C. and M. Station, Bangalore, to enforce his money claims against one China Muniswami Goundar and obtained a decree therein. The suit properties were brought to sale in execution of the decree and the decree-holder himself purchased the properties and took possession on 6th May 1924. Manioka Goundar, the son of China Muniswami Goundar preferred a claim in regard to his share in the suit properties. As the claim was allowed, Muniswami Appa filed O. S. No. 12 of 1924 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore for a declaration that he was entitled to attach ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad458
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question relating to court-fee and jurisdiction, The suit which has given rise to this civil revision petition was instituted by the respondent herein for setting aside the compromise decree passed in O. S. No. 610 of 1944 on 13th December 1945. The short facts of the case leading up to this litigation may be stated. 2. The present respondent 1 filed O.S. No. 15 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif of Madurantakam for recovering maintenance from the adoptive mother of the present petitioner and obtained a decree therein. In execution of that decree for maintenance the present respondent 1 brought the properties to sale and purchased them herself. Subsequently, the present petitioner filed O. S. No. 610 of 1944 for a declaration that the decree obtained in O. S. No. 15 of 1927 was not binding upon him for the reason that he was not impleaded as a party to that suit. That suit ultimately ended in a compromise decree und...
Tag this Judgment!