In this view, the only question which has to be answered is whether the petition has succeeded in showing that there has been an infringement of his rights as a shareholder under articles 31 and 19 1 f of the Chirajeet lals case.
Whilst all reasonable pre- sumption must undoubtedly be made in support of the consti- tutional validity of a law made by a competent legislature, the circumstances of the present case would seem, to my mind to exclude such presumption.
In the view that I have taken it is not necessary to discuss whether we can accept as sound the contention put forward by the learned Attorney-General that the word "property" as used in article 31 of the Constitution con- notes the entire property, that is to say the totality of the rights which the ownership of the object connotes.
An incorporated company, there- fore, can come up to this court for enforcement of its fundamental rights and so may the individual shareholders to enforce their own; but it would not be open to an individual shareholder to complain of an Act which affects the funda- mental rights of the company except to the extent that it constitutes an infraction of his own rights as well.
In respect of the arguments advanced to challenge the validity of the impugned Act under articles 31 and 19 of the Constitution of India, I agree with his line of reasoning and conclusion and have nothing more to add. In my opinion therefore this petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
Mathematical nicety and perfect equality are not Chirajeet lals case. Section 4 provides that on the issue of a notified order under section 3 all the directors of the company holding office as such immediately before the issue of the order shall be deemed to have vacated their offices.
The case was brought by one man and judged by one man. There is thus nothing in the record even by way of allegation which the petitioner need take steps to rebut.
It is urged that there was no public purpose for which the Legislature could authorise the taking possession or acquisition of property and such acquisition or taking of possession with- out payment Chirajeet lals case compensation is in violation of the funda- mental rights guaranteed by article 31 2 of the Constitu- tion.
It is not the province of the court to canvass the legislative judgment in such matters. The same reasoning applies to the other rights of the shareholders spoken of above, namely, their right of passing resolutions and of presenting winding up petition.
The facts urged in the petition and the points raised on behalf of the petitioner before us are fully set forth in the judgments of my brethren, Sastri, Mukherjea and Das JJ. If any state of facts can reasonably be conceived to sustain a classification, the existence of that state of facts must be assumed.
The right to vote, to elect directors, to pass resolu- tions and to present an application for winding up, are privileges incidental to the ownership of a share, but they are not by themselves apart from the share, "property" within the meaning of Art.
As one of the judges has pointed out, "the regulations may press with more or less weight upon one than upon another, but they are designed not to impose unequal or unnecessary restrictions upon anyone, but to promote, with as little individual inconvenience as possible, the general good.
The only serious point, which in my opinion, arises in the case in whether article 14 of the Constitution is in any way infringed by the impugned Act. Whilst all reasonable pre- sumptions must undoubtedly be made in favour of the consti- tutional validity of a law made competent legislature, no such presumption could be raised in this case as on the face of it the Act was discriminatory and the petitioner could not be called upon to prove that similar mismanagement existed in other companies.
Professor Willis dealing with this clause sums up the law as prevainling in the United States in regard to it in these words: Per shift, it is capable of producing 25 to 30 thousand pounds of yarn, and also one lakh yards of cloth.
Both the Leghari and the Urgenda case brought against the Dutch government were at the centre of discussions in London this week among eminent jurists on emerging climate change jurisprudence and adjudication.
The Crossbody Wallet Case is the best handsfree and multi-functional fashionable accessory. Matching Black Magnetic Phone Case is included. It features a high quality double-zip closure wallet with one side for cards &.
Luphie is The Manufacturer and Expert of Aluminium Case. Mould design and manufacture, Cutting,Stamping, Tapping, Polishing, Piredrawing, Sandblasting, Anodizing, Baking Finish,Punching, Electrophoresis, CdVeins, Highlights,Silk-Screen,Assembling etc.
High standard of development and design elite and. Case cited in: 67 cases Judgment: Kania, C.J. This is an application by the holder of one ordinary share of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd.
for a writ of mandamus and certain other reliefs under article 32 of the Constitution of India. The latest litigation cases involving the law firm Chaffin Luhana. Home / IPHONE 7 PLUS / Page 1 of IPHONE 7 PLUS.
Ultimate Wristlet Phone Case in Dusty Pink. Quick View Ultimate Wristlet Phone Case in Dusty Pink $ Everyday Crossbody Wallet Phone Case in Black. Quick View Golden Magnolia Luxe Battery Charging Phone Case $ Start studying Public Law cases.
Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.Chirajeet lals case