P L D (Rev (PLP)

NASIR AHMAD, F. C.‑In order to ascertain the facts of this case it is necessary to narrate briefly the history of the Rajput Bus and Transport Company Ltd. Sargodha and its subsequent division into groups and sub groups. The parent company was incorporated in 1951 but in 1953 it split up into two groups: A and B; and this arrangement was approved by the R. T. A., Lahore on 5th December, 1953. It appears that troubles arose subsequently amongst the members of B group, some of whom incorporated a new company with the name of the United Rajput Bus and Transport Company Limited, Sargodha. All the share‑holders of B Group did not join or were not allowed to join the new Company. As a matter of fact under Article 8 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association, the Directors of the new company (who are eleven in number, the total membership of the B group is twenty one) were authorized to accept or reject applications for shares. The two groups i.e. A group and the newly constitut ed company then made a joint application to the R. T. A. Lahore requesting that the route permits, which were allotted to Group B as a result of an agreement between the two groups, should ' be transferred to the new company. This item was not formally placed on the agenda nor was it published but it was taken up in the meeting of the R. T. A. held on 24th April, 1954 when the application was granted and the permits held in the name of Group B were transferred to the newly formed company. As already mentioned Muhammad Siddiq and some other share‑holders of Group B, who have not so far been taken in. the newly formed company in their own right as members of the old Group B, have now come up in appeal. The main argument that has been urged on behalf of the appellants is that they had no notice of the joint application and for that reason they could not place the facts before the R.T. A., who accepted the new arrangement not knowing that all mem bers of old Group B were not members of the new company in their own right. The Secretary R. T. A. has made an effort to unite the two opposing factions in Group B but he has fail ed. On behalf of Group A it is stated that they did not want to retain the liabilities of the parent company of which Group B are still members legally. Particularly in view of the diffi cult conditions prevailing in Group B they have a natural desire to walk out of the parent company. They can achieve their object by taking proper steps under the Company law or by adopting any other workable arrangement acceptable to the R. T. A. As far as the dissensions within Group B are concerned this is a matter for determination by a Court of civil jurisdiction. In .the meanwhile the status quo should he maintained so that the permits which were granted to Group B stand in their name. As a result I would accept this appeal set aside the other passed by the R. T. A. and direct that the permits which have been transferred to the newly, formed Rajput Bus and Transport Company Ltd. should continue to stand in the name of the parent company Group B. A. H. Appeal accepted.