9911796707
TMI Blog1926 (1) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation by a resolution of the creditors and the applicants, who have taken out the summons, were appointed liquidators. 2. It appears that on the 5th of November 1920 the Bank advanced a sum of ₹ 8,000 to one Amar Nath Tandon. In consideration of this loan Amar Nath Tandon gave a hand-note of the same date and a receipt in proof thereof to the Bank. Amar Nath Tandon has not repaid the loan and it is not disputed that the Bank has suffered loss in respect of the same. The gravamen of the charge against the respondents, who were directors of the Bank on the date of the loan, is that they were guilty of misfeasance in sanctioning this loan. It is said that Amar Nath Tandon was a man of no means, that he was a brother of one of the Direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;The General Board may, from time to time, delegate any of their powers other than their power of making calls, to Committees consisting of two or more Directors, and at such remuneration as they may think fit, and may recall or revoke any such delegation or appointment. Any Committee so formed shall, in the exercise of the powers delegated to them, conform to all such regulations as may he prescribed by the Directors, and all acts done by any such Committee, in conformity with such regulations and in fulfilment of the purposes of their appointments, but not otherwise, shall have the like force and effect as if done by the Board themselves." 4. It is common ground that the Board had delegated its powers of sanctioning loans to a Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Association. It must be taken that the public wore also aware of the terms of Art. 99 and they cannot complain if effect was given to those terms. In the case of Prefontaine v. Grenier [1907] A. C. 101=76 L. J. P. C. 4=95 L. T. 623=13 Manson 401=23 T. L. R. 27. Sir Arthur Wilson, in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee in an appeal from the Court of King's Bench for the province of Quebec, made the following observations: "In this country questions as to the nature and extent of the duty and responsibility of Directors and others, in respect of the conduct of the affairs of Companies have been frequently under consideration. Attempts have repeatedly been made to render them personally liable on the ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eglect or default" occurring in a similar article in the case as follows: "An act, or an omission to do an act, is wilful where the person who acts, or omits to act, knows that he is doing, and intends to do, what he is doing; but if that act or omission amounts to a breach of that person's duty, and therefore to negligence, he is not guilty of willful neglect or default unless he knows that he is committing, and intends to commit, a breach of his duty, or is recklessly careless in the sense of not caring whether his act or omission is or is not a breach of his duty." This statement was approved of by Warrington and Sargant, L. JJ., in the Court of Appeal. In the case before me there is no evidence of any act or an omiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
