https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96657 The court ruled on the interpretation of Clause 3(d) of a company's memorandum of association, emphasizing that investments should be made against specified securities and not personal ones. It allowed a single member to maintain a suit regarding company affairs, highlighting the necessity of impleading the company as a party for relief claims. The court questioned the validity of an injunction solely against Directors, stressing the importance of including all relevant parties. It differentiated between advancing money at interest and investing money, rejecting the ejusdem generis rule and granting Directors discretion in selecting suitable securities for investments. Ultimately, the injunction was dismissed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs. en-us Tue, 17 Jul 1934 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:23:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96657 The court ruled on the interpretation of Clause 3(d) of a company's memorandum of association, emphasizing that investments should be made against specified securities and not personal ones. It allowed a single member to maintain a suit regarding company affairs, highlighting the necessity of impleading the company as a party for relief claims. The court questioned the validity of an injunction solely against Directors, stressing the importance of including all relevant parties. It differentiated between advancing money at interest and investing money, rejecting the ejusdem generis rule and granting Directors discretion in selecting suitable securities for investments. Ultimately, the injunction was dismissed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 17 Jul 1934 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96657