48 of 1950 was taken from that decision which was dismissed by a Division Bench Chagla J. and Gajendragadkar J. on August 29, 1950.
Thereupon a suit being Suit No.
The Act substantially reproduced the provisions of the Ordinance except that the preambles to the Ordinance were omitted.
In the meantime, on April 7, 1950, the Ordinance was replaced by Act No.
In the meantime the new Constitu tion had companye into force on January 26, 1950.
On March 2, 1950, Respondent No.
An appeal Appeal No.
8 was appointed a director in his place and on the same day Respondent No.
438 of 1950 was filed in the High Court of Bombay by one Dwarkadas Shrinivas against the new directors challenging the validity of the Ordinance and the right of the new directors to make the call.
XXVIII of 1950.
48 lakhs and the paid up capital is Rs.
Bhagwati J. who tried the suit held that the Ordinance was valid and dismissed the suit.
5 having resigned, he is numberlonger a director and has been wrongly impleaded as respond ent.
3 to 7 as the new directors.
K.T. Chari, J.S. Dawdo, Alladi Kuppuswami, and C.R. Pattabhi Raman, for the petitioner.
On May 29, 1950, the present petition was filed by one Chiranjitlal Chowdhuri.
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
72 of 1950.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India G. N. Joshi with him for opposite party Nos.
December 4.
1 and 2.
5 having resigned, Respondent No.
3 to 5 and 7 to 10.
KANIA C.J. This is an application by the holder of one ordinary share of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. for a writ of mandamus and certain other reliefs under article 32 of the Constitution of India.
50 on the preference shares.
N. Joshi, for opposite party Nos.
9 was also appointed as a director.
On February 7, 1950, the new directors passed a resolution sanctioning a call for Rs.
On January 10, 1950, the Government of Bombay appointed Respondents Nos.
The Court delivered Judgment as follows.
