Authored By : Francis Maclean, Banerjee

Francis Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.

1. On the preliminary question whether an appeal lies, I seeno reason for confining the last sentence of Section 58 of the Companies Act,1882, to the case suggested by respondents Counsel, namely, the case in whichan issue has been directed upon a question of title. The words apply to thewhole section. The case of In the matter of the petition of Luchmee Chand I.L.R(1882) ., 8 Cal., 317, was a case of an appeal, and it was not suggested thatan appeal did not lie. I admit that is not an authority against the presentrespondent, as the point was not raised. In my opinion the appeal lies.

2. Upon the merits, I think that, without deciding upon thisappeal any question of title one way or the other, the learned Judge in theCourt below, in the exercise of his judicial discretion, was amply justified inrefusing the application. He could only make the order asked for, if satisfiedof the justice of the case," and, I think, there was quite sufficient uponthe undisputed facts to throw doubt upon that. In this view, it is unnecessaryto go into the facts which are set out in the petition of the Directors of theCompany facts as to which there is apparently no substantial dispute. The Judgewas right in refusing the application to register, and the question of titlemust be fought out in a regular suit. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Banerjee, J.

3. I concur.

.

Amrita Lal Ghose vs.Shrish Chunder Chowdhry and Ors.(19.06.1899 - CALHC)