9911796707
TMI Blog1938 (8) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ends that leave to defend the suit should have been given to him unconditionally. The circumstances are these. The respondent (plaintiff) is the South Indian Industrials Ltd. The suit has been filed by its managing director. The appellant is another managing director. The claim against the appellant is for a sum of Rs. 2,83,878-6-11 the amount over-drawn by him from the company previous to the year 1928. There is no contest regarding this amount owing by the appellant to the company. In defence, the appellant raised various contentions, the most important of which is that the suit has not been filed with proper authority, inasmuch as the plaint purports to be signed by the managing director. His case on this point is that there is nothing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven permission to defend it provided he furnished security for the sum of Rs. 25,000. As already stated it is urged before us that in the circumstances of the case the Court is bound to grant the appellant permission to defend unconditionally. [His Lordship referred to the law on the subject of granting leave to defend and proceeded :] All the cases cited before us indicate that the defendant's case should be bona fide and should raise a triable issue which would show that he has a fair defence to put forward against the plaintiff's claim. It is not necessary that the Court should enter fully into the merits of the case and decide, but it should be satisfied that the defences raised show that there is a fair issue to be tried by a com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om time to time entrust to and confer upon a managing director for the time being such of the powers exercisable under the Articles of Association of the company by the directors as they may think fit .." It is argued for the respondent that the directors have entrusted him with full powers to institute suits on behalf of the company by himself. The proceedings of the directors dated 7-7-1918 to which the present appellant along with others was a party show that it was "resolved that the Chairman M. Mohammad Hashim Sait (respondent) and M. Hajee Ebrahim Sait (appellant) be appointed Managing Directors of the Company on a remuneration of Rs. 2000 per mensem each to manage the business of the company either jointly or severally". It foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to all the directors : (See 5 Halsbury 337) and if this is so, the resolution cannot be called in aid to support the respondent's position as admittedly no notice of the meeting was given to the appellant. But as we have stated the other proceeding referred to gives sufficient power to the respondent to. institute the suit validly. On the merits, the contentions of the appellant have no force at all. He may have a claim for a portion of the undistributed bonus but this claim amounting at best only to Rs. 1,00,000 and odd, has been given up by him by letter dated 8-6-1927 wherein he says : "I find that there is absolutely no chance of recovering all or any portion of the bonus and dividends due to me and as such I hereby release my rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
