https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96769 The court upheld the order requiring security for Rs. 25,000 from the appellant to defend the suit, as the appellant's defenses were deemed not genuine. The plaintiff, a director of the company, was found to have valid authority to file the suit based on past resolutions and delegated powers. The appellant's set off claims, including a bonus and potential winding-up amounts, were dismissed for lack of substantiation. The court rejected the appellant's plea of the suit being time-barred due to an acknowledgment of liability in a letter, deeming the defenses vexatious and upholding the order with costs. en-us Wed, 10 Aug 1938 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:32:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96769 The court upheld the order requiring security for Rs. 25,000 from the appellant to defend the suit, as the appellant's defenses were deemed not genuine. The plaintiff, a director of the company, was found to have valid authority to file the suit based on past resolutions and delegated powers. The appellant's set off claims, including a bonus and potential winding-up amounts, were dismissed for lack of substantiation. The court rejected the appellant's plea of the suit being time-barred due to an acknowledgment of liability in a letter, deeming the defenses vexatious and upholding the order with costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 10 Aug 1938 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96769