Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad124; (1937)2MLJ848
..... on the second part of the case.13. we have been asked to relieve these respondents from the consequences of their wilful negligence, under the provisions section 281 of the indian companies act. that section provides that if in a proceeding for negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust it appears to the court hearing the case that ..... but entirely different considerations arise with regard to the sum of rs. 6,331-9-3. in this connection it is necessary to refer to section 103 of the indian companies act. this section provides that a company shall not commence any business or exercise any borrowing powers unless (a) shares held subject to the payment of the whole amount ..... respondent had such knowledge. he, however, held that they were all liable as they took no steps to see that a responsible person was attending to the company's finances. they had all failed to carry out their duties, and were guilty of the grossest negligence. the position with regard to this sum of rs. 4,988-7 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad143; (1937)2MLJ812
..... to the estate from this litigation as the purchase price for his assistance, that this price shall be treated as ' costs of administration' under section 49(3) of the presidency towns insolvency act, arid that all the creditors (including, of course, the indemnifying creditor) shall share rateably in the balance of the realisations.3. i ..... on which the insolvency law is based. a former proposal that the financing creditor should be rewarded by having his debt paid in full in priority to the other creditors out of any amount that might be recovered was disapproved ..... to a difficult and important question which is constantly arising in insolvency work, namely, how is an individual creditor, who is willing for a consideration to finance and indemnify the official assignee in an attack on an alleged fraudulent alienation, to be compensated for the risk which he runs, without offending against the principles .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad640; (1938)1MLJ856
orderburn, j.1. the conviction of the company was in my opinion correct. section 76(1) of the companies act requires a general meeting to be held once at least in every year. the argument on behalf of the ..... held in 1934 could be adjourned to 1935 and again adjourned to 1936 arid so on without limit. but that would obviously not satisfy section 76. section 76 demands that there shall be a general meeting held once at least in every year, that is, one meeting per year, and ..... on 31st march, 1935, was not a different meeting from the one which began on 30th december, 1934; it was the same meeting. section 76 required that in 1935 a separate and distinct meeting should be held.2. the conviction of the company is therefore correct and the fine ..... cannot be said to have been 'knowingly parties to the default' in the face of the evidence that they took legal advice and acted accordingly.3. i set aside the convictions of the accused nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 and direct that the fines imposed on them .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1938)1MLJ800
..... . nos. 14 to 21 of 1937. those appeals were from the decisions of the stationary sub-magistrate of pollachi, who convicted several persons of an offence under section 16 of the motor vehicles act for violating rule 30(a)(1)(i) of the madras motor vehicles rules. the facts in each case were that lorries had been engaged at calicut to deliver ..... he said that he did not know exactly what was the meaning of the words 'let for hire'. he held that letting for hire must be one definite and localised act and that in the present cases even if the charge was that the vehicles were let for hire, the letting had been done and completed at calicut and therefore neither .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad929; (1938)2MLJ790
..... accounting to his co-owner for his share of the profits made by the use of the common property see watson and company v. ramchand dutt and section 37 of the partnership act). we accordingly hold that the obstruction caused by the 1st defendant was unlawful and entitled the plaintiff to claim damages.36. as regards the quantum of damages ..... 's conduct was not justified, we do not think it necessary to deal with this argument of mr. srinivasa aiyangar. it is no doubt recognised in section 53 of the partnership act that even after dissolution, any partner may restrain any other partner from using any of the property of the firm for his own benefit until the affairs ..... of the appellant, that the equities depended on the facts and circumstances of each case and that a person claiming such equities must (in the terms of section 88 of the trusts act) show either that one of the partners has 'availed himself of his character' to gain an advantage or that the partner has gained an advantage of entering .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad821; (1938)2MLJ281
..... the least, extremely doubtful whether the use of a wireless receiving set without a licence would amount to an offence under section 20 of the indian telegraphs act which in view of section 4 of that act could not have been intended to include wireless receiving sets used ordinarily to receive broadcast programmes. in my opinion there is ..... justification for a separate conviction under section 20 of the indian telegraphs act or for a separate sentence under that section. the conviction and sentence under section 20 of the indian telegraphs act are therefore set aside.2. it is argued that even the conviction under sections 3 and 6 of the wireless telegraphy act cannot stand because actually a licence ..... possession of a wireless receiving set without a licence under sections 3 and 6 of act xvii of 1933 and also of working the same without a licence under section 20 of act xiii of 1885 and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 60 under the wireless telegraphy act and a fine of rs. 75 under the indian .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad999; (1939)1MLJ625
..... a bench of this court of which i was a member held that a suit by trustees against co-trustees for accounts does not come within the provisions of section 92 and may be instituted without the sanction of the advocate-general. this contention must also be overruled.19. my learned brother concurs in this judgment and the appeal ..... only remains to consider the contentions of the first respondent that the suit fails by reason of the doctrine of estoppel, the law of limitation and the provisions of section 92 of the code of civil procedure. the contention with regard to estoppel is based on the doctrine of election and it is this. it is said that, ..... had been no breach of trust. he also contended that the suit could not be maintained in view of the provisions of section 92 of the code of civil procedure and of the madras hindu religious endowments act, and raised pleas of estoppel and limitation. all these contentions were decided against the first respondent, except the contention that there .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad227
orderlakshmana rao, j.1. the evidence justifies the conviction of petitioners 1 to 3 and their sentences are not excessive. but the evidence is that petitioners 4 to 11 were the servants of petitioner 1, the keeper of the common gaming house, and it is not suggested that they were gambling. they cannot therefore be convicted under section 9, madras gaming act, and their conviction is set aside. their fines if levied will be refunded and otherwise the petition is dismissed.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad21; (1938)2MLJ863
..... indap 169 : i.l.r. 12 lah. 280 (p.c.) the privy council had to consider an ordinance made by the governor-general under the government of india act, 1915, section 72 which authorises him in cases of emergency to promulgate ordinances for the peace and good government of british india. the judicial committee held that it could not be disputed ..... should not have been availed of by the governor-general, who should have seen that steps were being taken for complying with the requirements of sub-section. 2 and for laying the act before both the houses of parliament and receiving his majesty's assent for which the period between the 4th of october and the 17th of december, ..... capable of no other interpretation. in a case which went up to the judicial committee of the privy council a similar contention was raised in regard to another section of the government of india act. it was summarily rejected by their lordships. see bhagat singh v. king-emperor (1931) 61 m.l.j. 279 : 1931 l.r. 58 indap 169 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad17; (1938)2MLJ745
..... the plaintiff to be forfeited under rule 12, sub-rules. 3 and 4 of the madras electoral rules framed under the government of india act, section 72(a) (4) which empowers the making of provision by rules under the act for certain purposes, among them beingthe qualification of electors, the constitution of constituencies and the method of election of the governor's legislative ..... .2. one argument in appeal is that the rules enabling the forfeiture of a deposit made by the unsuccessful candidate are ultra vires of the local government, seeing that this section under which these rules are framed contains no provision for the imposition of such a penalty. the argument on this head is based on the case kirk v. nowill and .....
Tag this Judgment!