OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE Vs. MADHOLAL SINDHU
LAWS(BOM)-1946-8-9
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on August 21,1946

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE Appellant
VERSUS
MADHOLAL SINDHU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GHELA ICHHARAM V. SANKALCHAND JETHA [REFERRED TO]
BAI NATHI V. NARSI DULLABH [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD DIN V. HIRDA RAM [REFERRED TO]
MR. JUSTICE BROOMFIELD ALSO IN SHANKAR V. PRABHAKARDIXIT [REFERRED TO]
BHUDEB CHANDRA ROY VS. BHIKSHAKAR PATTANAIK [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SUNDICATE BANK VS. MOHAMMED [LAWS(KER)-2010-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
GTL LIMITED VS. IFCI LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-395] [REFERRED TO]
NABHA INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. HARKISHAN DASS LUKHMI DASS [LAWS(DLH)-1998-9-102] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRAKUMAR CHANDULAL VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-1983-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH VS. MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD. [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-52] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL SECURITIES CLEARING CORPORATION LTD VS. PRIME BROKING COMPANY (INDIA) LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2016-6-82] [REFERRED TO]
MONJUR MONDAL VS. AHAMMAD MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-1952-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
SARASWATHI AMMAL VS. KOTTAYAM BANK LTD [LAWS(KER)-1949-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMI PANIPOONDAR VS. MANI [LAWS(MAD)-1983-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
NEELA ASHOK NAIK VS. NEELA ASHOK NAIK [LAWS(BOM)-1999-9-61] [REFERRED TO]
GRISON KNITTING WORKS VS. LAXMI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1959-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
M/S SICPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD VS. M/S BRUSHMAN (INDIA) LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-509] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. PRABHATAI WD/O SHANKARRAO BODHANKAR VS. M/S. CHIMOTE & SONS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-115] [REFERRED TO]
SHANI DEVI (SMT.) VS. AJAY KUMAR [LAWS(UTN)-2007-7-72] [REFERRED TO]
HARINARAYAN G BAJAJ VS. RELIANCE CAPITAL LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2018-1-174] [REFERRED TO]
TENDRIL FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD & ORS VS. NAMEDI LEASING & FINANCE LTD & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED VS. VENKATESWARLU KARI [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-48] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati dated September 17, 1945.
(2.)In the action the plaintiff, respondent No. 1 in this Court, sought a declaration and consequential relief with the object of establishing that certain alleged liens claimed by and in favour of the Asian Assurance Company, Ltd., (defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 to this appeal) upon 26,000 shares in that company do not attach to the shares. The Official Assignee (defendant No. 5 and the appellant in this Court) filed a counter-claim for redemption of the shares claiming that the equity of redemption was vested in him as trustee of the property of Mr. Meyer Nissim who was adjudicated an insolvent on July 16, 1940. In the Court below, the plaintiff was successful in his claim, and the learned Judge granted him certain relief against which there is no appeal, but the Official Assignee s counter-claim was dismissed with costs, and it is against that dismissal that this appeal has been brought.
(3.)The shares in question are of Rs, 25 each of which Rs. 5 only has been paid up and they still stand in the books of the Assurance Company registered in the name of Mr. Meyer Nissim, because by its articles the Assurance Company has an absolute right to refuse the transfer and consequential registration of any share in the company and in exercise of such right the Assurance Company has refused to transfer the shares, not, I think without good reason, since questions with regard to these 26,000 have been under litigation for over five years. The Official Assignee does not dispute that the plaintiff has some interest in the shares, but he alleges that the plaintiff is not the absolute owner thereof but the pledgee of them, by subrogation to the rights and interests of the New Citizen Bank of India, Ltd., (defendant No. 2 to this action, and respondent No. 3 to this appeal). Hence the counter-claim for redemption.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.