LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

ORIENTAL METAL PRESSING WORKS (P.) versus BHASKAR KASHINATH THAKOOR & ANOTHER

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 16-12-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

· 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
329 
his father's name and his residence. All the details 
given in the extract tallied with the description of the 
appellant. In the memorandum of appeal filed to 
the Court of Session challenging the conviction record-
ed by the Magistrate First Class, it was not contend-
ed that the person convicted in the earlier case was 
some person other than the appellant. · 
But the appellant was merely an employee of 
Thakur Din. It is not shown that he made himself 
any profit out of the transaction. Thakur Din has 
been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 only. The 
offence committed by the appellant is a repetition of 
a similar offence committed QY him a few months 
earlier, but we think that having regard to all the 
circumstances, this is a case in which there are special 
and adequate reasons which would justify imposition 
of a penalty less than the minimum prescribed by 
s. 16(ii) of the Act. We reduce the sentence to impri-
sonment to three months and we remit the fine. Sub-
ject to this modification, the appeal is dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
ORIENTAL METAL PRESSING WORKS (P.) 
LTD. 
v. 
BHASKAR KASHINATH THAKOOR & 
ANOTHER 
...,. 
(JAFER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR and 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Company-Managing director appointing his successor by will 
-Validity -
'Assignment', Meaning of-Companies Act, z956 
(I of z956), ss. 3z2, 255. 
By s. 3r2 of the Companies Act, 1956, "Any assignment of 
his office made after the commencement of this Act by any direc-
tor of a company shall be void." 
•• 
Sarjoo P1asad 
v. 
The Stale of 
Uttar Pradesh 
Shah J. 
x960 
Dei:ember z6. 
330 
SUPREME COUR1' REPORTS 
[1961) 
1960 
The managing director of a private company,. empowered 
-· 
by the terms of the agreement between him and the company 
Oriental Metal and the articles thereof to appoint, by deed or by will, any per-
Pressing Works son to be the managing director in his place and stead, died 
(P.) ltd. 
leaving a will whereby he appointed one of the appellants the 
v. 
managing director in his place from the date of his death. 
The 
Bhaskar /(ashi- High Court took the view that the word 'assignment' in the 
nath 'Ihakoor section included 'appointment' and as such the appointment in 
.s. Another 
question was void. 
Held, thats. 312 of the Companies Act, 1956, cannot be 
interpreted in such a way as to bring it into conflict with s. 255 
of the Act since its language does not compel such an interpreta-
tion. The word 'assignment' in that >ection does not mean 
appointment and the section is intended to render a transfer of 
his office by a director void and not an appointment by him of 
liis successor. 
Section 255 of the Act, which expressly permits directors to 
be appointed otherwise than by the company, shows that, sub-
ject to the lill)it as to numbers prescribed by it, a director, autho-
rised by the articles of the company, can appoint another to 
take his office when rendered vacant by his resignation or death 
or on expiry qf his te1 m of office. 
The proviso to s. 86B of the old Act cannot lend any sup-
port to the argument that the word 'assignment' in s. 312 of the 
new Act includes 'appointment'. 
The Guardians of the Poor of the West Derby Union v. The 
Metropolitan Life Assurance Society, [1879] A. C. 647, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
10 of 1960. 
Appeal·from the judgment and decree dated Febru-
ary 24, 1959, of the Bombay High Court in First 
Appeal No. 540 of 1958. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, A. P. 
Bhatt, Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley, P. L. Vohra 
and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellants. 
The respondent did not appear. 
1960. December 16. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
Sari,., f. 
SARKAR, J.-Dadoba Tukaram Thakoor carried on 
a business under the name and style of Oriental Metal 
Pressing \Yorks. On ]\fay 26, 1955, a private company 
was incorporated under the name of Oriental Metal 
Pressing Works Ltd.,' hereafter called the Company, 
i-
3 S.C.R. SUPREME. COURT REPORTS 
331 
. ' 
' 
. 
. 
to . take o:ver the aforesaid business. On July 7, 1955, 
z9fo 
Dadoba. transf~rred' his business to the '!ompany. 
.~n . Oriental Metal 
the same date, an ·agreement was made ·between him Pressing works 
and the Company by which he was appointed the 
(P.) Lt4. 
managing director. of the Company Jor ljfe a.ml was . 
v. 
given the power "by deed. inter .vivos'. or by will or Bhaskar Kadi-
codicil to appoint any person to be a ma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.