Report No. 86
6.3. Controversy as to rights of share-holders.-
There is a controversy related to the rights of shareholders who have applied under section 2. This controversy arises because of the words "any other shareholder". Two views exist on the scope of section 3(1) in this regard. According to the Madras1 and Calcutta2 view, section 3 is confined to cases where leave to buy is applied for by any other shareholder. Its provisions cannot therefore be availed of by the very shareholders who applied under section 2 (i.e. the shareholders owning one half share in the property, as the section now stands). According, however, to the Punjab High Court,3 the shareholders who applied under section 2 can also apply under section 3.
1. Angamuthu Mudaliar v. Ratna Mudaliar, AIR 1925 Mad 1234.
2. (a) Attie Chandra v. Bhushan Chandra, AIR 1926 Cal 1190; (b) Manik La! v. Pulin Behari, AIR 1950 Cal 431 (432, 433).
3. Seth Chiranji IA v. Hardwari Lal, 19641 ILR 2 Purtj 321. (328) (P.C. Pandit, J.).
Back
