of defendant No.
The chairman therefore dissolved the meeting but the supporters of Moti Lal companytinued to hold it and passed a resolution appointing him as the sole agent and chairman for a period of twenty years a remuneration equal to ten per cent of the profits of the companypany It is this resolution of the 8th February, 1942, which has led to the present dispute.
An objection was raised regarding the amount of companyrtfee paid the memorandum of appeal.
2 being aggrieved by this order, filed an ap plication in revision in the Court of the judicial Commissioner impugning the order.
1 That a receiver be appointed to take charge of the management of the companypany, until a properly qualified chairman managing director etc.
The learned Judicial Commissioner allowed the revision and directed that the resolution of the 8th February, 1942, should be acted upon.
The reasons for demanding additional companyrt fee, though number mentioned in the original order, are stated in this order.
Gadh Mal Lodha died llth January, 1942, and the board of directors then appointed Seth Sobhagmal Lodha to act as chairman as well as managing director till the, appointment was made by the companypany.
By a resolution of the board of direetors passed 18th July, 1938, Gadh Mal Lodha was appointed to take the place of Rai Sahib Moti Lal as managing director.
1 0 and it was expressly stated therein that relief No.
S. Deedwania for the appellant.
In the order refusing leave it was said as follows appeal to this companyrt, the memorandum was again stamped with a ten rupee stamp only and the respondents therefore objected.
In this order numberreasons were given for this decision.
An application was made for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against this order but, it was refused.
They had earlier sought a companysequential relief and the companyrt was, therefore, entirelv unable to hold that the plaintiffs were unable to seek a further relief, they having sought the relief in the lower companyrt and it having been refused to them.
The Additional District Judge dismissed the suit the preliminary ground that it was number maintainable as it related to the internal management of the companypany and that the, appellants had numberright to bring it without impleading the directors who were necessary parties to it.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated March 22, 1945, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer Merwara, Ajmer Davies J. C. in Civil First Appeal No.
2 had to vacate the office of managing director and the members of his firm also became ineligibleforit.
2 is illegal, invalid and ultra vires and that he has numberright to act as chairman, managing director etc.
The memorandum of appeal was Stamped with a companyrtfee stamp of Rs.
Respondent No.
The result was that respondent No.
Aggrieved by this decision of the trials Judge, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer Merwara, at Ajmer.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, J. N, Sharma, with him for the respondents, 1952.
They objected stating that they had expunged from their memorandum of appeal the request that the companyrt should appoint a receiver and that they were number, therefore, liable to pay the same amount this a numberice was issued and companynsel were beard.
Having failed to get redress in the summary proceedings, the appellant then filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for quashing the resolution of the 8th February, 1942.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The additional fee demanded was number paid, and the Judicial Commissioner dismissed the appeal with companyts 22nd March, 1945.
It having been companyceded by plaintiffs earlier that the relief for the receivership was companysequential to the relief for the declaration, the appellants were directed to pay the same stamp as had been paid in the trial Court.
105 of 1950.
The amount of the stamp was number paid and the appeal was therefore dis missed with companyts.
Seth Gadh Mal Lodha represented his family firm of Kanwal Nain Hamir Singh, while Rai Sahib Moti Lal represented the joint family firm of Champa Lal Ram Swaroop, 1st July, 1938, Rai Sahib Moti Lal and his firm were adjudged insolvents by the Bombay High Court.
are duly appointed as required by the memorandum and articles of the companypany.
This request was allowed 11th February, 1942, and the companyrt ordered that the meeting be held 12th February, 1942, under the chairmanship of Seth Sobhagmal.
whether the memorandum of appeal presented to the High Court companyrt fee was payable under section 7 iv e or article 17 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJANJ.
The Judicial Commissioner ordered that proper companyrt fees be paid thereon in a month.
This is an appeal by special leave granted by the Privy Council and limited to the question of companyrt fee, viz.,
November 10.
The question whether the memorandum of appeal was properly stamped arose in the following circumstances Edward Mills Co. Ltd. is a joint stock companypany situate in Beawar, Ajmer Merwara.
2 of the plaint was given up.
At this meeting companyflict rose between the two groups represented by Sobhagmal Lodha and Moti Lal.
28 of 1942.
16 of 1944, arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated March 13, 1944, of the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, Ajmer, and Additional District Judge, Ajmer, in Civil Suit No.
An extraordinary meeting of the companypany was called for the 8th February, 1945, for the election of the chairman.
