SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(Cal) 176

A.N.RAY
MURARKA PAINT AND VARNISH WORKS LTD. – Appellant
Versus
MOHANLAL MURARKA – Respondent


A. N. RAY, J.

( 1 ) THIS suit has been instituted by Murarka Paint and Varnish Works (Private) Ltd. against Mohanlal Murarka, Chunilal Murarka, Purushottamalal Murarka, Beharilal Murarka, Radheylal Murarka, Kunjlal Murarka and Hiralal Murarka. The plaintiff has its registered office at 4e, Dalhousic Square, East, Calcutta; the plaintiff uses the said office in common with 5 other limited companies. At the last annual general meeting of the plaintiff company, Sohanlal Murarka,, Kissenlal Murarka, Shankarlal Murarka and Mohanlal Murarka were appointed directors.

( 2 ) ARTICLE 111 of the Company states that every director shall vacate his office, inter alia, on his being requested in writing by all his co-directors to resign. On or about February 24, 1960 Sohanlal Murarka, Kissenlal Murarka and Shankarlal Murarka acting under Article 111 requested Mohanlal Murarka in writing to resign. The plaintiffs case is that Mohanlal Murarka immediately thereafter ceased to be director of the plaintiff. On or about February 25, 1960 the Board of Directors of the plaintiff at a meeting held by it on the same day appointed in accordance with the Articles one Mahabir Prasad Murarka in place and st

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top