Supreme Court: Who is an Authorized Agent under the Companies Act?

Colappan Chetty.2 Berwick D.J., whose judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court (2 S. C. ... The Supreme Court held as follows: " The authority of Ramasamy Chetty (the agent) to bind the defendants. must be determined by the express provisions of the power of attorney; and their power of attorney clearly did not authorize Ramasamy Chetty to bind the defendant by signing the note in his ( ... Virappa....

2023 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 871

Therefore whereas a natural person can do an act that is not prohibited, a legal person can do only what it is authorized by law to do. ... Like the legal persons such as corporations, companies can do only what they are authorized to do, the Public Law legal persons can also do what they are authorized by statute, common law or prerogative (in this country the constitution as well) only. ... “It is idl....

2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 508

later stage also by convincing the court that the agent was duly authorized by the respective party in that matter. ... The Judge may thereupon record in writing that the agent is permitted to appear and act on behalf of the party; and unless and until the said permission is granted, no appearance, application, or act, of the agent shall be recognized by the C....

An act done by an agent in the course of his employment, on behalf of the principal and within the apparent scope of his authority, binds the principal, unless the agent was, in fact, not authorized to do the particular act and the person dealing with him had notice that in doing such ... The case cited in the judgment of the Supreme Court, namely, Velauthanpillai ....

J. had to consider an analogous provision of the English Companies Act of 1862 which required that a Company should, once at least in every year, forward a list of the shareholders of the Company, the share capital and other particulars, and in default it provided inter alia that every director who ... When it is shown that the document was received by an agent of the Company, the fact of the delivery of the document to the Company is....

High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

the 1st defendant to act on instructions from authorized representatives with specific reference to the 2nd defendant. ... [18] In line with the trite legal position that a remisier is an agent to the stockbroking house in a limited sense, namely for the purpose of executing trades, this court finds the 2nd defendant was indeed the authorized representative and agent of the 1st defendan....

[14]This Court recognizes that agency is a fundamental legal concept defined under s135Contracts Act 1950 “An ‘agent’ is a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third persons. ... for the purpose of executing trades, this Court finds the 2nd Defendant was indeed the authorized representative and agent of the 1st Defendant wh....

2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1611

According to us, it is the sheer abuse of process of law adopted by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the name of Respondent No.2 and as continuation of the said proceedings, would cause undue harassment and agony to the Petitioners for no illegal act committed by them. ... A photocopy of Form No.32 filed with the Registrar of Companies in respect of the resignation of Respondent No.4 is placed on record. ... Their said claim has been adjudicated ....

2024 0 Supreme(All) 1646

A pleader by definition, includes any person other than one authorized by law to practise in a court. If he is appointed with the permission of the court, to act in a particular proceeding. ... Simultaneously Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 it provides that: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, any court, authority, or person may permit any person, not enrolled as ....

2022 Supreme(US)(ca4) 258

To begin, we decline plaintiffs’ belated request to certify this question to the Supreme Court of South Carolina. ... So if plaintiffs were charged fees to obtain copies of their medical records that were not authorized by the Patient Records Act, the providers who own the records have violated the Act. ... And “[w]hen a statute’s terms are clear and un....

2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1851

Property of the Company is not the property of the shareholders. Then, in R.C. Cooper (supra) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the context of nationalization of banks explained the nature of a share and the rights and interests of a shareholder in a company. A shareholder has merely an interest in the Company arising under its Articles of Association measured by a sum of money for the purpose of liability, and by a share in the profit. The Supreme Court held that a com....

2016 0 Supreme(Ori) 1005

9.From the above analysis, it is apparent that the defendant No. 5, the authorized agent of the defendant No. 1-Company, received the premium from the suit Society against the potato stock for the relevant period and issued the cover note for the same. Thus, there was a concluded contract between the parties to be enforceable in law. Therefore, the defendant No. 1-Company is bound by the act done by its authorized agent, defendant No.

2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 327

Vs. Special Area Development Authority, Korba & another, reported in AIR 1982 SC 697. The Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that the Company registered under the Companies Act is a legal person, separate and distinct from its individual members. The property of the Company is not the property of the shareholders, but a shareholder has merely an interest in the Company arising under its Articles of Association, measured by a sum of money for the purpose of liability a....

2009 0 Supreme(All) 2782

The Supreme Court again held that a Company incorporated under the Companies Act could become an agent of the Government and thereby would come under the authority of the Central Government provided the Company was performing in substance governmental and not commercial functions. “Such an inference that the corporation is the agent of the Government may be drawn where it is performing in substance governmental and not commercial functions.” The Supreme Court in Heavy Enginee....

2006 0 Supreme(Del) 988

00 lakh on the prescribed form on 27th October, 2005 payable by Punjab national Bank, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. The plea of the plaintiff is that after being appointed as an authorized agent, he contacted various business houses and cargo companies who had large consignments to courier/cargo to london.