Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)Nibro Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 6 March, 1990
Thus, it is seen that the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that as per the decision in Nibro Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [1991] 70 Comp Cas 388 (Delhi) and K. N. Sankaranarayanan v. Shree Consultations and Services Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 80 Comp Cas 558 (Mad) the suit is not maintainable for want of a valid resolution by the board of directors authorising Mrs. Lalitha Rathnam to file the suit against the defendant and in the absence of such a resolution, the suit has to fail as not maintainable is well founded and the judgment and the decree of the trial court has to be reversed on this question. It is more so when this plea has been raised as one of the grounds of appeal also and it is a legal plea, which can be raised at any stage. Considering these aspects, I hold on the point in the appeal that the appellant is not liable to be evicted from the suit property.
Firm Ram Sahay Mall Rameshwar Dayal And ... vs Bishwanath Prasad on 30 November, 1962
In Firm Ram Sahay Mall Rameshwar Dayal v. Bishwanath Prasad, , it has been held that when a plea that the court had no jurisdiction, is taken up in the written statement and an issue is raised but the issue is given up before hearing, the defendant/appellant cannot raise the plea in the appeal in view of section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Mohammed Seraj vs Adibar Rahaman Sheikh And Ors. on 31 May, 1968
In Mohammed Seraj v. Adibar Rahaman Sheikh, , also, it has been held that an issue not pressed in the trial court cannot be agitated in appeal.
The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
Section 25 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Clara Auroro De Brangenca And Ors. vs Sylvia Angela Alvares And Ors. on 4 February, 1985
In the decision in Clara Auroro De Branganca v. Sylvia Angela Alvares, , it has been held that where in the suit challenging a partition deed, the defendant raised the preliminary objection that the suit was liable to be dismissed as the plaint was signed and verified by a person who was incompetent to do so but did not press it and gave it up in the trial court, it is not open to him to agitate it in the appeal. All these decisions relied on by learned counsel appearing for the respondent indicate that if the defendant has raised a plea with regard to the maintainability of the suit and later did not press it or gave it up, he cannot raise the same in the appellate stage. As I have already observed, there is no indication in the judgment of the learned Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, that the defendant who has raised the plea of maintainability of the suit, has given it up or not pressed it. The trial court has proceeded on a wrong assumption that the question of maintainability was raised on the ground of want of a proper notice of termination and has simply observed that no arguments were adduced on the maintainability of the suit indicating that the defendant has not argued as to how the suit is not maintainable when there is valid and proper notice of termination. Therefore, I am of opinion that the contention of the respondent that the question of maintainability of the suit having been given up in the trial court, it cannot be raised at the appellate stage is not a tenable one since it cannot be stated that this question has been actively given up by the defendant in the trial court.
Turner Morrison And Co., Ltd vs Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd on 9 March, 1972
15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the suit has been filed by one of the directors of the plaintiff trust without any authorisation by the board of directors enabling the plaintiff to file the suit and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable under Order 29, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Order 29, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, provides that in suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation, who is able to depose to the facts of the case. According to learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as per Order 29, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, pleadings may be signed and verified by a director of a corporation but it would not enlarge his right to file a suit without any resolution for the same. According to learned counsel appearing for the appellant, a suit by a secretary having general power of attorney is maintainable notwithstanding the provision in the articles of association requiring the consent of a director as per the decision in Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd. v. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., , and in the present case, there is neither a power of attorney in favour of Mrs. Lalitha Rathnam to file the suit nor any subsequent resolution passed by the board of directors ratifying the filing of the suit and according to learned counsel, the suit is, therefore, not maintainable under Order 29, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would on the other hand argue that the defendant is in arrears of rent and the trust has chosen to file a suit for its eviction on the ground of default committed by the respondent that after issuing a valid notice to quit as required under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and it is an indoor management of the trust and the appellant who is a tenant in arrears cannot question the same.