TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether indorsements of promissory notes made by agents appointed under a power of attorney by liquidators (purported delegation of powers under Section 179 of the Companies Act) are valid in law; (ii) Whether subsequent ratification by the liquidator can validate such indorsements that were void ab initio.
Issue (i): Validity of indorsements made by agents under power of attorney from liquidators under Section 179 of the Companies Act.
Analysis: Section 179 confers statutory powers on liquidators, including authority to indorse promissory notes. A statutory power conferred on a liquidator cannot be delegated in the absence of express statutory provision permitting delegation. The indorsements in question were executed by agents appointed by the liquidators under a general power of attorney, and no statutory provision authorises delegation of the liquidators' statutory authority to indorse promissory notes.
Conclusion: The indorsements by the agents are void and convey no title to the assignees; conclusion against the petitioner (in favour of the respondent).
Issue (ii): Effect of subsequent ratification by the liquidator of indorsements originally made by agents.
Analysis: Ratification can validate acts capable of being validly performed by an agent on behalf of the principal. Where the original act was one the principal could not authorise by delegation (because the power is statutory and non-delegable), such an act is void ab initio and cannot be validated by subsequent ratification. There is no material showing that the liquidator had, prior to the agents' indorsements, decided to assign the notes and merely required a ministerial signature; no pleaded or proved antecedent decision exists to render the agents' actions ministerial.
Conclusion: Subsequent ratification does not validate the void indorsements; conclusion against the petitioner (in favour of the respondent).
Final Conclusion: The statutory power to indorse promissory notes vested in liquidators under Section 179 of the Companies Act cannot be delegated to agents by general power of attorney, and any indorsements executed by such agents are void and not cured by later ratification; both revision petitions are dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power conferred on a liquidator (Section 179 of the Companies Act) is non-delegable in the absence of statutory authority to delegate, and an act void for want of delegated authority cannot be validated by subsequent ratification.
TaxTMI 
