TMI Blog1936 (10) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a direction to the Managing Agent Mr. P.S. Venkatarama Ayyar that he should pay up immediately a sum of Rs. 5,400 odd representing the amount overdrawn by him from the Company while he was in charge as Managing Agent. The Managing Agent by his counter affidavit claimed (1) that he was entitled to retain a sum of Rs. 2,800 towards arrears of salary due to himself, (2) that he was also entitled to the sums of Rs. 976-0-9 and Rs. 1,083 which were according to him improperly debited against him on 15th November 1935 and (3) that he was entitled to retain moneys which might be required to enable him to meet the expenses of certain suits filed against him as Mananging Agent. The learned Judge has disallowed these claims and given a direction for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not open to him to take exception to the proceedings at a later stage. In the same way, we may point out in this case also, the appellant did not take exception to the maintainability of the application under Section 185 in the lower court, but was only anxious and we dare say rightly anxious that his claims to credit under various heads shall be considered. We do not also think that the mere fact of his having ceased to be an Agent before the commencement of the liquidation proceedings excludes action under Section 185. It seems to us the test is whether the money now claimed came into his hands in his character as Agent or not. It is not denied .in the present case that the money did so come into his hands. Proceeding now to the items ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the report placed before the meeting of the shareholders prevented the Directors from considering the propriety or otherwise of the various items of credit claimed by the Managing Agent. So far as one can gather from the resolutions themselves it is clear that the appellant also was present at the meeting of the Directors and there is nothing on record to show that he took exception to the disallowance. The mere fact that these items of disallowance were actually brought into the account only later on, in November, i.e., after the appellant's resignation, does not warrant the suggestion that they have been fraudulently debited against the appellant. Once the disallowance was authorised by a formal resolution of the Directors, it was merel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his agreement. More than that we do not wish to say at this stage. The third suit is said to be one filed by the Kodak Limited against the appellant in respect of goods purchased by him for the Company on his own personal guarantee. As the facts relating to this suit are not before us we do not wish to say more in respect of the appellant's claim even under this head except to say that if a claim like that made by the liquidator against the appellant can be dealt with under Section 185 of the Companies Act, it is only fair that the claims which the appellant may have against the Company must also be considered at the same time and it will not be proper to drive the appellant to a separate suit in respect of claims that he may have against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
