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

1939 Supreme(Mad) 227

PANDRANG ROW
Sankamma Hengsu – Appellant
Versus
H. Anantha Kamath – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pandrang Row, J.

1. These connected Revision Petitions arise out of two connected Small Cause Suits instituted by two different persons claiming to be assignees or indorsees of two different promissory notes under indorsements purporting to have been made by Rao Saheb P.U. Narayana Aiyar and P. Ramayya Alva as joint holders of a power-of-attorney granted to them by the liquidators of the National Livestock Registration Bank, Ltd., Madras. The suits were dismissed mainly on the ground that the indorsements were not valid and conveyed no interest to the assignees. In one of these revision petitions, namely, C.R.P. No. 1041 of 1936, the only question that arises is whether the indorsement by the agents of the Liquidators is valid in law. This very point arose in connection with a similar case in C.R.P. No. 22 of 1934 in which it was held by Sir Owen Beasley, C.J., that the liquidators had no power whatever to delegate their powers to any one else. The power of the liquidators themselves is derived from Section 179 of the Indian Companies Act and so far as indorsements of promissory notes are concerned, from Clause (f) of that section. In other words, the power given to the liqu

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