TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
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 ✕ 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 a suit seeking declaration of entitlement to an office of president and an injunction restraining interference with that office had to be valued on the market value of the bank's properties for court-fee and jurisdiction; (ii) whether the suit was maintainable when the company sued through its president and the secretary did not join as plaintiff.
Issue (i): whether a suit seeking declaration of entitlement to an office of president and an injunction restraining interference with that office had to be valued on the market value of the bank's properties for court-fee and jurisdiction.
Analysis: The relief claimed was only a declaration to office and an injunction consequential upon that declaration. Although the office carried managerial powers under the articles, the subject-matter of the suit was not one that could be translated into definite money terms. The court distinguished cases where the relief directly affected property with ascertainable value and held that the suit did not fall in that class.
Conclusion: The suit was correctly valued under the Court-fees Act and was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court.
Issue (ii): whether the suit was maintainable when the company sued through its president and the secretary did not join as plaintiff.
Analysis: The articles requiring suit in the name of specified officers did not exclude the company from suing when the secretary declined to join and the majority of directors supported the action. The court treated the objection as unsustainable because the second plaintiff could seek the relief in his individual capacity and, in any event, the company could properly appear through the supporting majority of its directors.
Conclusion: The suit was maintainable and the objection to the company's presence as plaintiff failed.
Final Conclusion: The preliminary objections were rejected, and the revision petition was dismissed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: A suit confined to declaration of an office and consequential injunction is not to be valued on the basis of the value of the institution's properties merely because the office carries managerial powers, and a company may maintain such a suit when the majority of its directors support it despite the secretary's refusal to join.
TaxTMI 
