Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.57 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
The Peerless General Finance And ... vs Punjab And Sindh Bank on 7 August, 2007
As regards the authorization of Sh. H. C. Verma the
plaintiff brought on record the resolution as Ex. PW-1/ 2. The
original minute book was produced by PW-1. That again
constitute due proof of the passing of the resolution. Similarly
because the witness PW-1 who produced this minute book had
not attended the meeting as he could not have, being a mere
accountant in the company, merely because he was not
aware if notice of the meeting had been sent to the Board of
Directors before the meeting was held would not render the
21
resolution non est. If there was any internal lacuna in passing
the resolution or in calling the meeting the defendants are no
one to question it as by the subsequent conduct of the
company even in the filing of this appeal through Sh. K. B.
Uppal, Director, the company has clearly ratified the action of
Sh. H. C. Verma in instituting the interpleader suit. This is
sufficient to meet the requirements of law and I find support in
this view from the judgment of the Hon'bleDelhi High Court
reported in ILR (2008) I Del 203 Peerless General Finance and
Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank.
Section 7 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 76 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
1