Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)The Indian Electricity Act, 1910
Veeramachineni Seethiah vs Bode Venkatasubbiah And Ors. on 10 December, 1948
It is not necessary to refer to the two other decisions relied on by Mr. Banaji viz., IN re janbazar Manna Estate, Ltd. and Seethiah v. Venkatasubiah AIR 1949 Mad 675 because they reiterate the view laid down by the Privy Council in Loch's case and state in general terms that the view of the majority of the shareholders must prevail and the mere fact that there is difference of views cannot be considered to be sufficient reason for winding up the Company.
Article 3 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Electricity Act, 2003
Jayantilal Ranchchoddas Koticha vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. on 21 June, 1957
This case was cited by Mr. Banaji for the purpose of pointing out that in the memorandum is the present case also there is a clause (4) which refers to entering into partnership or into any arrangement for sharing profits, amalgamation union of interests, co-operation joint venture etc. He contended that on the basis of the ratio of the above case, the amalgamation clause does not amount to an ancillary object but it is one of the principal objects or at any rate, on a par with the principal object I will have no hesitation in acceding to this argument. For the present, I am referring to this case with a view to point out the principle of construction which governs the case where the memorandum of association first provides for specific object and then general words are used in which various objects have been mentioned. The learned Judge held that in such a case the objects specified in general words may be treated as ancillary objects. In the case of the memorandum of the Company in the present case the process is reverse. This is not a case of specific object followed by general words. On the other hand, this is a case of general words followed by a specific object and also other objects. The general object is stated to be as follows: