Setalvad, Attorney General for India, A. P. Bhatt, Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley, P. L. Vohra and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellants.
The respondent did number appear.
On November 22, 1957, the respondent Bhaskar filed a suit in the City Civil Court of Bombay against the Company, the appellants Govind and Bhalchandra and the respondent Harish for the following declarations and for reliefs incidental thereto a the appointment of the appellant Govind as the managing director was void b the appointment of the appellant Bhalchandra as director was illegal and inoperative and c he the respondent Bhaskar was and companytinued to be a director.
December 16.
The respondent Bhaskar companytended that be had number ceased to be a director and challenged the legality of the appointment of the appellant Bhalchandra as a director.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated February 24, 1959, of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
The appeal came up for hearing before a bench of two learned Judges of that Court.
The Company and the appellants Govind and Bhalchandra appealed from this decision to the High Court at Bombay.
These learned Judges having taken different views, the matter was referred to another learned Judge of the same High Court.
He further companytended that the appointment of the appellant Govind as the managing director of the Company by the will of Dadoba, was void.
He also purported to companyopt the appellant Bhal chandra as a director.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR, J. Dadoba Tukaram Thakoor carried on a business under the name and style of Oriental Metal Pressing Works.
540 of 1958.
On May 26,1955, a private companypany was incorporated under the name of Oriental Metal Pressing Works Ltd., hereafter called the Company, to take over the aforesaid business.
The appellant Govind was companytending that the respondent Bhaskar had ceased to be a director on account of his failure to attend the directors meetings.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the same date, an agreement was made between him and the Company by which he was appointed the managing director of the Company for life and was given the power by deed inter vivos or by will or companyicil to appoint any person to be a managing director in his place and stead.
This companystitution of the Company companytinued till Dadobas death on January 14, 1957.
10 of 1960.
It appears that while the appeal was pending in this Court, the respondent Bhaskar sold his holding in the Company to the appellant Govind and has number numberinterest in the Company or the appeal.
Shortly after Dadobas death, disputes arose between the appellant Govind and the respondent Bhaskar.
The shareholders of the Company were Dadoba, his brother, the respondent Bhaskar, and his two sons, the appellant Govind and the respondent Harish, of whom the first three were the directors, Dadoba being the managing director.
On July 7, 1955, Dadoba transferred his business to the Company.
Dadoba had died leaving a will whereby he purported to appoint the appellant Govind the managing director of the Company in his place from the date of his death.
