NAND PRASAD Vs. ARJUN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the same proceeding taken on 22-6-1952, under Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act 1913, by Sri Arjun Prasad, respondent No. 1 for the reconstruction of the Gaya Sugar Mills, Ltd., hereafter to be referred to as "the Mills Ltd.," which had already been directed to be wound up under an earlier order of this Court passed on 14-11-1951, and are directed against the common order, dated 24-9-1957. Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 1957 is on behalf of about seventy preference share-holders out of about one hundred and eighty and has been argued on their behalf by Mr. S. N. Dutt. The other appeals Letters Patent Appeal No. 13 of 1957 is on behalf of about twenty-five employees of the corporation who are represented before us by Mr. Sankat Haran Singh.

(2.) The aforesaid application for reconstruction, which was exclusively on behalf of Sri Arjun Prasad, respondent No. 1 had been admitted on 6-10-1953, along with the following directions:

(3.) It appears that the learned Company Judge on the submission of those reports by. Mr. G. C. Banerjee had directed that they would be. taken for consideration alone with the main application for reconstruction. Accordingly, these reports as to the various meetings ultimately, came up for consideration by the court for the first time on 22-7-1957. On that day in the course of the hearing a number of objections were raised against two of these reports, namely, the one relating to the meeting of the share-holders and preference share-holders held on 4-3-1956, and the other relating to the meeting of the unsecured creditors held on 9-11-1953. The report as to the latter meeting was that four creditors representing a total value of Rs. 1,38,173/3/8 1/2 pies had objected to the resolution and others representing in all a total value of Rs. 6,97,790-6-9 had voted in favour of the scheme. In the group of the latter the value of Bhadani Brothers was Rs. 3,41,862-4-0 and that of Hindustan Coal Company was Rs. 10,258-0-3 both of whom in that meeting had been represented by respondent No. 1, Sri Arjun Prasad in person, The claim of Sri Arjun Prasad is that the Directors of these two companies had by their respective resolutions authorised respondent No. 1 to vote on their behalf in person. Accordingly he acted as such on their behalf and voted for them in person and not by proxy.