1930 (3) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... containing certain items of claim Nos. 1 to 9 amounting in all to Rs. 6,490-7-0. Of these items the order of the Company Judge deals with items Nos. 1 to 4, which are calims by the appellant on two promissory notes of November 7, 1924, and November 21, 1924. These promissory notes are signed by Mr. T.B. Gilani, and below his signature there appear on one promissory note the words "Managing Agent, Dehra Dun Electric Tramway Company Limited." On the other promissory note below the signature of Mr. Gilani the words written are "Agent, Dehra Dun Mussorie Electric Tramway Company, Limited." The learned Company Judge has held that the Dehra Dun Mussoori Electric Tramway Company, Limited, now in liquidation, are not rendered liable by these promi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....It accordingly follows that Mr. Gilani is not shown to be the duly authorized agent of the company for the purpose of making promissory notes. Accordingly, therefore, even if Mr. Gilani had acted in the proper form which would have bound the company, the company is not bound because Mr. Gilani was not the authorized agent of the company for this purpose. The next point in this connection is whether the form employed in the promissory note would bind the company if Mr. Gilani had been duly authorized to bind it. Reference has been made to several cases and the appellant relied on Chapman v. Smethurst [1909] 1 K.B. 927; 78 L. J. K. B. 654; 16 Manson 171; 14 Comp. Cas. 94; 52 S. J. 340; 25 T. L. R. 383. In that case the promissory note was sig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ge which states: "accordingly I direct that the costs in the Calcutta case incurred or that will properly be incurred by the company in liquidation shall be borne by Messrs. Jhandoo Mal and Sons according to the compromise." This compromise between the parties in Calcutta, dated July 5, 1928, stated in para. 9(f ) as follows: "That the costs incurred by the parties in Calcutta High Court will be decided as payable to and by the parties according to the order of this Hon'ble Court." It is admitted that "this Hon'ble Court" refers to the Allahabad High Court in which this application was made. Objection is taken on behalf of the appellant that the Official Liquidator claims a large sum as his travelling expenses to Calcutta. It is de....