1930 (8) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... kwell in a latter case followed the decision of Mr. Justice K. Kemp, he still thought his original point of view was right. Now, the point is this. The plaintiffs are a company registered in England and also registered under section 277 of the Indian Companies Act, and they commenced this action to obtain an injunction to restrain the defendants from importing and/or selling certain article under a trade-mark similar to that of the plaintiffs, and the plaint was signed by Mr. C.M. Eastley, described as a partner in the firm of Messrs. Little Co., attorneys for and duly constituted attorneys of the plaintiffs. There is a power-of-attorney, which is on the record, given by the plaintiffs to Mr. Eastley under which he was empowered to comm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s not apply to a company and a decision of the Privy Council in Delhi and London Bank v. Oldham ILR 21 Cal. 60, is cited as an authority on that behalf. The passage particularly relied on is at page 142, where their Lordships say that: "Their Lordships are of opinion that section 51 of the Code, [ to which r. 14, of O. VI, now corresponds] which regulates proceedings taken by or on behalf of ordinary plaintiffs, does not apply to such a case as the present, but that this case must be decided with reference only to section 435, which expressly applies to corporations .." Section 435 is now replaced by O. XXIX, r. 1. I think that, when the facts in that case are looked at, the Privy Council did not mean to say that section 51 of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the company, therefore, can always authorise some person to sign on behalf of the company. If the company does not choose to do that, it can act under O. XXIX, r. 1, i, e., it can rely on that Order as in fact constituting an agent to sign without the necessity of giving any express authority. In that way O. XXIX, is read as merely permissive and not mandatory. In point of form it is clearly permissive and not mandatory. I think, therefore, that the order of Mr. Justice Blackwell was wrong technically and the plaint was correct. But as this point does not seem to have been taken in the Court below, I think the appeal should be allowed without costs either here or in the Court below. Baker, J. I agree and have nothing to add. - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X