T G JOG Vs. MUIR MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a judgment of Mitter J. refusing an application filed by the Appellants for being added as co-Plaintiffs in the suit.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the parties in this appeal, it is necessary to state briefly the allegations on which the suit was founded. The allegations are that a notice convening a meeting of the shareholders and a circular issued for that purpose were issued by the company fixing the date of the meeting for October 20, 1947. The notice and the circular suppressed material facts which were necessary for the shareholders to know in order to judge the effect of the proposed resolutions. The resolutions which are challenged in this suit are resolutions Nos. 1 and 2 which were ultimately passed at the meeting. The first prayer made in the plaint was for a declaration that resolutions Nos. 1 and 2 are invalid and should be set aside. There was a further prayer for a declaration that the appointment of Defendant No. 2 as managing agents of the company was not binding on the company and on the shareholders of the company. The suit was instituted in June, 1950. Thereafter certain proceedings were taken for revocation of the leave granted by this Court for the institution of the suit. Those proceedings ultimately ended in March, 1952. Thereafter the present application was filed by the Appellants for being added as co-Plaintiffs. The Appellants alleged that the prayers made in the suit did not exhaust all the remedies to which the Plaintiffs would be entitled on the allegations made in the plaint. In particular, the Appellants alleged that the Plaintiffs omitted to pray for a declaration that resolutions Nos. 3 and 4 were also invalid and not binding on the Company. The matter came up before Mitter J. who dismissed the application on the ground that the Appellants had no right to come in as co-Plaintiffs as also on the ground that there was great delay in making the application.

(3.) It is the propriety of this order which is challenged in this appeal.