Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the decision of the Tribunal appointed under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (No. 70 of 1951) -hereinafter referred to as the Act. There is no dispute on facts. The petitioner Bank -The Narang Bank of India Limited hereinafter referred to as the Bank -is a displaced Bank. It acquired certain shares of the respondent Company (Messrs Jagatjit Distilling & Allied Industries Limited, Jagatjit Nagar, Hamira, District Kapurthala) - hereinafter called the Company -from one Mr. P.L. Kapani. Mr. P.L. Kapani had, in turn, acquired these shares along with blank transfer deeds from five shareholders, namely, Tikaya Ram Chowdhary 100 shares, Chander Parkash Singh 100 shares, Chander Bhan 200 shares, Chander Bhan 100 shares and Shrimati Sushila Wati 500 shares, in all 1000 shares -Mr. Kapani had in fact pledged these shares with the Bank and had handed over to the Bank blank transfer deeds pertaining to these shares. These shares are of the value of rupees ten each and are partly paid up to the extent of Rs. 7/8/ - each. The Company had made a call of Re. 1/ - each share on these shares before the 15th August, 1947. The notice of the call was issued to the original shareholders and as they had not complied with the notice, the Company forfeited the shares on the 4th May, 1948. After the forfeiture, the Act came into force. On the 10th August, 1957, the Bank filed the present application under section 19 of the Act claiming that the Bank held shares of the Company and the same may be converted into fully paid up shares. Section 19(2) of the Act provides for such conversion. It may be mentioned that before this application was made the Bank had obtained a decree under the Act against Mr. Kapani on the basis of the pledge on these shares with the Bank, and had exercised the option of taking over the shares in satisfaction of the amount due from Mr. Kapani under section 17 of the Act. The present application was resisted by the Company. As many as 8 issues were framed and at the moment we are merely concerned with issue No. 2. The Tribunal has dismissed the application mainly on issue No. 2. Against this decision, the present appeal has been preferred.
(2.) ARGUMENTS have been addressed to me only on issue No. 2. Issue No. 2 is in these terms : 2. Whether the petitioner has a locus standi to present this application. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the words 'any share held by him' in sub -sections (1) and (2) of section 19 of the Act mean physically and beneficially held, and, therefore, the Bank which holds the shares along with the blank transfer deeds being a displaced Bank is entitled to move the Tribunal under section 19 of the Act and get these partly paid up shares converted into fully paid up shares under section 19(2) of the Act. This contention is controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent Company. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that any share held by him has to be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Indian Companies Act wherein the Company will only recognise the person as a holder of the shares who is so mentioned in the books of the Company, that is, in the Register of the shareholders and in support thereof relies on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Jagatjit Distilling & Allied Industries Limited v. Shiv Ram Batta, (1962) 32 Comp. Cas. 117 :, (1963) 65 P.L.R. 328. This decision certainly supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent and being a Division Bench decision is binding on me sitting in Single Bench.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant, in the first instance, tried to distinguish this decision on the ground that this decision merely pertains to section 19(1) and has no relevancy so far as section 19(2) is concerned. His contention is that the words 'held by him' in section 19(2) mean physically held by him. This argument loses sight of the fact that the words 'any share held by him' occur not only in section 19(1) but also in section 19(2) of the Act and, therefore, only one meaning can be attributed to these words. Thus, whatever meaning is given to these words in section 19(1) must automatically be attributed to these words in section 19(2) of the Act. It cannot be held that the same words were used in the same section by the Legislature having two diametrically opposed meanings. The interpretation that these words must be given different meanings can only be held good in one eventuality where the context in which these words are used can justify a diametrically opposed meaning which cannot be said to be the case so far as the present provision is concerned. Moreover, in Jagatjit Distilling and Allied Industries Limited's case, (1962) 32 Comp. Cas. 117 :, (1963) 65 P.L.R. 328, the prayer was both under Sections 19(1) and 19(2) and, therefore, it could not be held that the learned Judges were not aware of the meaning of these words in section 19(2) of the Act. In the aforesaid decision the words 'any share held by him' have been given the same meaning in both the sub -sections (1) and (2) of section 19.;