Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.50 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Rajghria Paper Mills Ltd. vs The General Manager, Indian Security ... on 31 January, 2000
It AIR 2002 Delhi 239 titled as Rajghria Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. General
Manger, Indian Security Press and another it has been held as under:
"Company Act (1 of 1956), S. 291 - Company
Director - Not competent to file suit on behalf
of company, unless specific power is conferred
upon him - No Proof tendered in instant case
to provide that the Director, who filed the suit
was duly so authorized."
Section 291 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Escorts Limited vs Sai Autos And Ors. on 20 July, 1990
In Escorts Ltd. Vs. Sai Autos Limited cited as 1999 Rajdhani Law
Reporter Page 430 at para no.14, it was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court that, "The manner in which such a resolution of the Board of Directors of
Companies are to be proved, is clearly stated by Hardy, J. in Oberio Hotels
(India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Observer Publications (S.N.469/86) that "the only
way to prove that a particular resolution was passed at a meeting of the Board
of Directors of a company is that the minutes book in which the said resolution
was recoded a having been passed should be produced in Court as that alone
can form evidence of the fact U/s 194 of the Companies Act."
M/S. Nibro Limited vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 6 March, 1990
In the
decision in Ms. Nibro Limited Vs. National Insurance Co. Limited AIR 1991
Delhi 25, after taking not of a series of decision on the subject, the view taken
by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was that unless a power to institute suit is
specifically conferred on a particular director, he has no authority to institute
M/s Klipco Sales P. Ltd. Vs. M/s R. L. Khandelwal & Sons (Suit No.1244/08) Page no. 15 of pages 18
suit on behalf of the company. It must, therefore, follow that although the
plaint was signed and verified properly but the suit was not instituted by a duly
authorized person on behalf of the plaintiff.
Order vs Kuttukaran Machine Tools Limited). An ... on 7 January, 2010
To enable a court to reject a plaint on the ground that it does not
disclose cause of action, it should look at the plaint and nothing else. Besides
the plaint, the documents upon which the plaintiff has relied his claim can also
be looked into. A careful scrutiny of plaint discloses that the plaint has fully
disclosed the cause of action in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant
and the relief claimed is not under valued. The plaintiff has fully complied with
the provisions of Rule 7 of Order VII and the summons were duly served upon
the defendant as per rule 9 of Order V. Thus, the plaint has fully disclosed the
M/s Klipco Sales P. Ltd. Vs. M/s R. L. Khandelwal & Sons (Suit No.1244/08) Page no. 12 of pages 18
cause of action in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and therefore
the issue stands decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
1