TMI Blog1966 (5) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases had to be postponed. Since then, several dates were fixed, but the plaintiffs were unable to bring any counsel to complete the arguments on their behalf. The cases were ultimately fixed for the 9th of May, 1966, and the learned junior counsel who were appearing for the plaintiff-respondents were definitely informed that the date would not be altered. However, an application was again filed for postponement of the cases from the 9th of May, 1966, and at the very clear promise on behalf of the learned junior counsel that any date after the 9th of May, 1966, would be adhered to and some senior counsel, who may be able to argue on the new date would be engaged, the cases were postponed to the 12th of May, 1966, by our order dated the 25th of April, 1966, on an application of the same date. However, no one appeared to argue the cases even on the 12th of May, 1966, and in view of the fact that the court was about to close for summer vacations, we refused to postpone the cases any further. The result, therefore, is that we have to dispose of these appeals without hearing the arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs in the two suits. One Suit No. 63 of 1949 was filed by Laxmi Ratan Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-6 was found due to the plaintiff, and then in June, 1946, and June, 1947, when after making adjustment of sums due to the defendant, details of which are given in schedule B attached to the plaint, the balance now sued for still remained due. The suit having been filed on the 13th of April, 1949,|was claimed to be within limitation on account of letters acknowledging liability, one of which dated the 16th of April, 1946, has been filed and is the main bone of contention in the two suits. Several defences were taken including that the suit was barred by time and that the letter dated the 16th of April, 1946, did not amount to an acknowledgment both because it was not written by a person who had an authority to do so on behalf of the corporation and also on account of the fact that the letter itself did not amount to an acknowledgment.! It was also alleged that, in any case, the amount acknowledged in the letter could only be decreed and the letter cannot be treated as an acknowledgment of any larger sum which may be found due on taking accounts. The other Suit No. 65 of 1949 was filed by the company on similar allegations and also claiming limitation from the same letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting the amount" and so on the letter went on replying item-wise to the queries or objections made, and ultimately ended the letter by saying, "Please note that unless all the particulars are received by us, we cannot adjust the items". In reply to his letter, Shri Subramaniyam in his letter in question again replied to the queries item-wise. He starts the letter by saying : "We are in receipt of your letter No. 666 dated the 22th February, 1946, and we give below our observations " : Thereafter, he proceeds item-wise either raising objections against specific items accepting some part of these items. After dealing with several items at the end of the letter he goes on to say : "We are enclosing herewith details of entries not responded by you. After all the above adjustments, the position will be as per statement attached. Interest has been provided on some balances and on others it has not been provided. We request you to confirm this balance of Rs. 1,07,447-13-11, so that we may proceed with the calculation of interest and settle your claim once and for all immediately. Kindly acknowledge this letter and favour us with an immediate reply. Copy to Lala Purshottam Das Ji Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties on behalf of the corporation, gives an idea that there was no such power vested in the secretary. In his statement, Shri Subramaniyam states : "I never acknowledge debts. Exhibit 1 was just correspondence to clarify the position and if it had been confirmed, as it was not, I would have put it before the directors for orders ..I carried out routine correspondence for Aluminium Corporation .On the 9th of February, 1945, the board directed that L. Ramratan Gupta be asked to explain the condition of the accounts and the shortages in stores at the time of handing over the management of the corporation. Exhibit 54 was written in pursuance of this resolution .I sued as secretary ( sic ) as well as orders were issued that I was accountant secretary of Aluminium Corporation of India when I joined As soon as exhibit 2 was written I was ordered to forward the correspondence directly to P.D. Singhania without reference to him, i.e. , Lakshmipat. I was asked to send copies of the correspondence only, and not correspondence. I was not to receive instruc tions from P. D. Singhania but to keep him informed only .. P. D. Singhania is a director of J. K. Jute Mills (not of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the letter written by the munib in the reported case appears to have been written. This aspect of the matter, to our mind was wholly irrelevant. The circumstances in which a letter is written, may reflect upon the value of the letter as an acknowledgment but it cannot increase the authority of the person who has written the letter. It was further argued that the secretary of a corporation under the Indian law is a responsible officer and as such, must be deemed to have inherent powers to bind the corporation without proof of any special authority to do so No authority has been cited for that proposition and we are unable to accept it on general principles. Although under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, a secretary is an officer of the company merely being an officer of the company does not authorise him to bind the company in financial matters unless he is authorised to do so The Indian Companies Act has been modelled on the English company law. Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd edition, 6th volume at page 324 (paragraph 638) also states that the secretary is an officer of the company and yet at page 326 (paragraph 644) the position of the secretary has been summarised a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
