1958 (4) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gere. The fifth defendant was the manager of the Davanagere branch. He endorsed the promissory note in question in favour of the plaintiff as per exhibit P 1(a). Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the pronote in question is genuine and supported by consideration. They have opined that the assignment exhibit P 1(a) is a genuine one. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. The first appellate court came to the conclusion that out of the consideration of Rs. 1,000 included in exhibit P 1, a sum of Rs. 400 had been discharged by the first defendant even prior to the assignment, exhibit P 1(a), and that this fact was known to the plaintiff at the time of the assignment in question. This is a finding of fact and is con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Companies Act of 1913. It is as follows : "A bill of exchange, hundi or promissory note shall be deemed to have been made, drawn, accepted or endorsed on behalf of a company if made, drawn, accepted or endorsed in the name of, or by or on behalf of or on account of, the company by any person acting under its authority, express or implied." The point for determination in this case is, was the fifth defendant a person acting under the authority of the company express of implied. It is proved that there is no express authority. The only point that remains to be considered is whether he had implied authority. In Hindustan Assurance and Mutual Benefit Society Ltd. v. Gurdit Singh AIR 1924 Lah. 462 a Bench of the Lahore High Court held that un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ordships held as follows : "that the managing director, in drawing the bill on behalf of the company, was 'a person acting under its authority' within the meaning of section 77 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and that the company was liable. As by the constitution of the company the managing director might have been authorized to draw the bill, a person taking the bill in due course was entitled to assume that he had authority in fact." Section 77 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, is in pari materia with section 89 of the Indian Companies Act. This decision applies on all fours to the facts of the present case. Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, tried to distinguish this ca....