TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Validity of notice of demand under the Indian Companies Act: Advocate's notice ruled inadequate under Section 163</h1> <h3>Manjeebhai Khataw and Co. Versus Jamal Brothers and Co. Ltd.</h3> The judgment by Chari, J. addresses the validity of a notice of demand under Section 163 of the Indian Companies Act. The court examines whether a notice ... - Issues:1. Validity of the notice of demand under Section 163 of the Indian Companies Act.2. Interpretation of the phrase 'under his hand' in the context of the notice of demand.3. Comparison of agent's signature with principal's signature in legal notices.4. Analysis of relevant case laws to determine the sufficiency of an advocate's notice of demand.5. Consideration of statutory provisions and restrictions regarding the issuance of notices by agents or advocates.6. Examination of the legislative intent behind requiring notices to be issued under the hand of the creditor.7. Impact of a notice issued by an advocate on the authenticity and binding nature of the notice.8. Strict construction of statutory provisions when creating rights and privileges for parties involved in legal proceedings.9. Decision on the sufficiency of an advocate's notice of demand based on legal principles and precedents.10. Compliance with procedural requirements, including the interval between advertisement and hearing date.Analysis:The judgment by Chari, J. pertains to an application for the winding up of a company based on debt owed to the petitioner. The primary issue raised is the validity of the notice of demand under Section 163 of the Indian Companies Act. The objection revolves around the interpretation of the phrase 'under his hand' in the context of the notice of demand. The judge considers whether a notice issued by an advocate on behalf of the creditor fulfills the statutory requirements. The argument presented involves comparing an agent's signature with that of the principal and analyzing relevant case laws to determine the sufficiency of an advocate's notice of demand.The judgment delves into legal precedents, such as the case of Wilson v. Wallani, to assess whether an advocate's notice of demand meets the criteria set forth in the legislation. The judge examines the statutory provisions and restrictions regarding the issuance of notices by agents or advocates. The legislative intent behind requiring notices to be issued under the hand of the creditor is scrutinized to determine the authenticity and binding nature of the notice. The court emphasizes the importance of strict construction of statutory provisions when creating rights and privileges for parties involved in legal proceedings.After considering all arguments, the judge concludes that an advocate's notice of demand does not satisfy the requirements of the section under scrutiny. Despite acknowledging the doubt surrounding the issue, the judge relies on legal authority to support the decision. Additionally, the judgment addresses a procedural objection concerning the interval between advertisement and the hearing date, highlighting the importance of compliance with procedural requirements in legal proceedings. The petitioner is given the option to withdraw the petition or proceed with providing evidence of the company's inability to pay its debts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
