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>Interpretation of Company's Memorandum Clause | Single Member's Suit | Directors' Discretion</h1> <h3>Bharat Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kanhaya Lal Gauba</h3> The court ruled on the interpretation of Clause 3(d) of a company's memorandum of association, emphasizing that investments should be made against ... Requirements with respect to memorandum Issues:Interpretation of Clause 3(d) of the memorandum of association regarding investments and loans by the company, maintainability of the suit by a single member against the company, necessity of impleading the company as a party, validity of injunction granted against Directors only, distinction between advancing money at interest and investing money, application of ejusdem generis rule in interpreting securities, discretion of Directors in approving security for investments.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Clause 3(d) of the memorandum of association of a company, specifically focusing on investments and loans. The plaintiff, a shareholder and director, sought a declaration that investments should only be made against specified securities and not personal ones, along with an injunction against the company regarding loan approvals. The court addressed the maintainability of the suit by a single member against the company, emphasizing that matters concerning the application of company assets are not merely internal management issues. It was established that a single member can maintain a suit for the interpretation of clauses affecting company affairs.Regarding the necessity of impleading the company as a party, the court highlighted that the relief claimed against the company must involve the company itself as a party. While discussing the validity of the injunction granted against Directors only, it was noted that all relevant parties should be included in such actions, especially those directly implicated in objectionable proceedings. The court expressed doubts about the sustainability of the injunction solely against the Directors, as they were not personally impleaded in the suit.Moving on to the main point of interpreting Clause 3(d), the court differentiated between advancing money at interest and investing money, rejecting the application of the ejusdem generis rule. The distinction between long-term investments and short-term advances was deliberated, with the court concluding that the two portions of the clause should be read independently. It was clarified that loans must be secured by specific assets, while investments allow Directors discretion in choosing suitable securities. The judgment modified the lower court's order, specifying that loans must be secured by designated assets, but Directors have autonomy in approving securities for investments, ultimately dismissing the injunction and leaving parties to bear their own costs.In a concurring opinion, the second judge agreed with the interpretation and conclusions presented in the main judgment, supporting the distinction between loans and investments and the discretion of Directors in approving securities for different transactions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
