{"id":74110,"date":"1961-01-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-01-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961"},"modified":"2016-04-20T06:01:53","modified_gmt":"2016-04-20T00:31:53","slug":"ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961","title":{"rendered":"Ramchandiram Mirchandani vs India United Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 30 January, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ramchandiram Mirchandani vs India United Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 30 January, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1962 Bom 92, (1961) 63 BOMLR 678, ILR 1962 Bom 186<\/div>\n
Bench: Patel<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT  <\/p>\n
(3)  The effects, good  and  bad,  of the managing  agency system have  been  well expressed  by Mr.  Justice  Pratt in  Parshuram Dataam Shamdasani  v.  Tata Industrial Bank  Ltd.,  55 MLJ 697  at p.  699  (Suit  NO.  2643 of  1923 OCJ of this Court). He  says: <\/p>\n
 “Under this system (managing  agency) a firm  of  financiers  engrafts itself  into the  vitals of a Company by making  its  employment  one of the  Articles of Association. It  usurps  the functions of  management,  which   properly  belongs  to the Directors.   It may  be either a source of  strength  supplying the Company  with finance;   on the other  hand it may  be a parasite  draining  the Company of  its  lifeblood.. . . . . .”.\n<\/p>\n
During  the latter part of the war and thereafter experience  showed that  inquite  a good number of cases  the latter applied and therefore the Legislature  intervened and recast  the entire  Companies Act,  providing for a large  number of   checks   which  prevented managing agents getting  control  of the  Board  of Directors  and thereby  enabling themselves  to cover their own deeds  and  misdeeds. The  objects of the provisions  must be  kept in  view  when  interpreting  the sections  of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 (6) Section  261(1) of the Companies  Act, so far as is relevant  may be  reproduced as follows:-   “(1) If a public  company . . . . . .has  a managing “agent”. . . . . . none of the following  persons  shall be  appointed  as a director of the Company. . . .. . .except  by a special  resolution  passed  by the company:-\n<\/p>\n
 (a) any  person  who is an officer or employee  of, or who holds any office or place of profit  under, the company or any  subsidiary  thereof:\n<\/p>\n
 Provided  that nothing in this  clause  shall  apply  to the director of such company  or subsidiary,  or to the  holder of any office or   place of profit  under such company  or subsidiary which  may  be  held by a  director of the company  by virtue of   section 314:\n<\/p>\n
 (b) where any  office or place of profit which  would  disqualify  a person  under clause (a)  read with the  proviso   thereto, is held by  any firm,  any  partner  in, or employee of, the firm;\n<\/p>\n
 (c)  x x x x:\n<\/p>\n
 (d)  where  any such  office or place of profit is held by a body  corporate,  any officer or  employee  of such  body  corporate;\n<\/p>\n
 (e) x x x x;\n<\/p>\n
  (f)  any associate, or  officer of  employee, of the managing  agents.\n<\/p>\n
It  may  be  noted that the conditions  for the application of clauses (a)  to  (g) are  satisfied.\n<\/p>\n
 (7)  Mr. Gupte  argues that B. M.  And  Co., satisfies  clauses  (a)  read with section 2(30)   which defines the word  “Officer”.   He then says  that  since defendant  No. 2 is an  officer or employee of  B. M. And  Co.,   he comes within  clause (d).  His   alternative argument  is that  in  any  event  since the  Agarwals  are the managing  agents,  under general  law  every one  of the partners  is a managing agent, and defendant  No. 2  being  both  an associate as  defined by  section 2 (3)(d) and  an officer  or employee  of  B. M.  And  Co., clause  (f)  applies.  Mr.  Nariman  on behalf of  defendant  No. 2  has challenged  the very  premise of Mr. Gupte  by saying  that  though  B. M.  And  Co.,   may  satisfy  the condition of  being an officer, it is not  yet  a holder of   any office or  place of profit  under the company. If that  is  so,  he says,  clause (d)   of  section  261(1)  cannot  apply. It is also argued   both  by Mr. Amin  and   by Mr.  Nariman  that since  defendant  No.2  is  merely a holder  of  the power of attorney, he  cannot  be  considered to be  an  officer  or  employee  of   B. M. And Co.  Regarding the alternative argument  of  Mr.  Gupte it is argued  that  it is impossible  to regard  each of the partners  in the position of  a  managing  agent  in view of the particular  scheme  of   the Act  and therefore  this clause  is not applicable   at all.  These  respective  arguments  must now  be  examined.\n<\/p>\n
 (8)  Section 2(30) of the Indian  Companies Act  defines  the word “officer” to include “managing  agent”. . . . ;  where the managing  agent. . . . .  is a  firm,  also  includes  “any  partner  in the firm”.  The  rest of the  section is  not  material  for the purpose of  this  appeal. In view of this definition,  B. M.  And  Co.,  must  be  regarded as an officer of the Mills.\n<\/p>\n
 (9) At  this stage  the argument  of  Mr.  Nariman that  though  B. M. And Co., may  be  regarded as  an  “officer”   for the purpose of sub-section (1)  clause (a),  it cannot be  regarded as holding  any  office or place of profit under the company  for  the  purpose of  sub-section (1)  clause (d),  must be   considered. He  relies  for this purpose on  certain election cases decided  by this Court and  by the Supreme Court.  The  first  case on  which  reliance  is placed is the case of  Dattatraya  Motiram v.  Bombay State,  . The  question arose  with reference  to  Articles  16(1)(2)(3) of the Constitution  of  India wherein  the following  words  occur “employment or  appointment  to any  office under the State”. It  was held  <\/p>\n
 “The expression ‘under the  State’   makes  it   clear that  the  person holdings  office to which article 16(1) applies is a person who stands  to the State as a subordinate would   to  a higher  officer, or, in other  words,  there must  be a relationship of  employer and  employee between the person holding  office and the “State”, or  at  least  there must  be an  element  of subordination to the State in the office  contemplated by article  16(1).”\n<\/p>\n
The  second case relied upon is  Abdul  Shakur  v. Rikhab  Chand,<\/a>  , where Articles 102(1)(a) and  58(1) of the Constitution  were construed.  The words  are “office  of profit  under the Government of  India”. In that  case  the election   of  a person  in  the service  of  a Committee of  Madarsa  Durga  Khawaja  Sahib  Akbari  was being  challenged.  It was held  by the Supreme Court  that  such an  appointment  could not be  regarded as an appointment under the Government   observing  that  <\/p>\n
 “The  power of Government   to appoint  a person to an  office of profit or to continue him  in  that   office or  revoke  his  appointment  at  their discretion and  payment  from out of Government revenues  are   important  factors in determining  whether that  person is  holding  in  office of profit  under the  Government  though payment from  a source other  than Government  revenue  is not always a decisive  factor.”\n<\/p>\n
 A  similar   test  was  also laid  down in reference  to   Article 19(1)(a) of the  Constitution  in  the  case of  Ramnarain  v.  Ramchandra,  .  In the same  volume  in reference  to the same  article  the  same question  arose in the  case of  Deorao  Laxman Anande v.  Keshav  Laxman Borkar,    wherein   the  following  tests were  applied:\n<\/p>\n
 “(1) What  authority  has  the power to make  an appointment to the office  concerned?\n<\/p>\n
  (2) What  authority   can take  disciplinary   action and  remove  or dismiss   the holder of the office? And  <\/p>\n
  (3) By  whom  and from what  source  is his remuneration paid?\n<\/p>\n
Of  these the  first two are  more important  than  the   third one”.\n<\/p>\n
 (10) Though managing  agent  has  large rights  under the agreement  of agency,  he is  yet  subject to the supervision of the directors and under certain circumstances  he can  be  removed  by the  company. He is  as liable  for breaches  of  duty  as any  other  smaller officer in the company. It  is  difficult   therefore  to say  that the  managing  agent  cannot  be  regarded as an  officer holding  an office or  place  of  profit under the company.\n<\/p>\n
  (11) A  partner  exercises all the powers of the firm  qua  the  business  of the company of which  the  firm  is  the managing  agent.  He is entitled  to  a part of the remuneration  our  of the total  given to the firm.  Moreover,  he and  the  firm are liable f or breaches  of duty. The major  tests therefore are satisfied   in  the present case.  Under these  circumstances it is clear  that  B. M. And Co.,   must  be held  to be  an officer  holding  an office or place of  profit under the company.\n<\/p>\n
 (12)  It also appears to me that  though   generally  the  tests  applied  above are good  tests for  determining  if a person holds  office or  place  of profit   under some  one, we cannot  necessarily be  confined to those tests.  Cases  may  differ and  the court has to construe  the provisions  of  a statute  in their  context and with due  regard  to the objects  to  be  achieved and the  mischief  to be  prevented. It  is  difficult  to appreciate the argument  that though B. M. And  Co., may  be  an  officer in view  of the definition,  still  it    cannot  be  said to hold an  office  or place of  profit  under the company.  I  may  refer to Corpus  Juris  Secundum, Vol.  67  at  p. 97  wherein the  word  “officer”  has  been  dealt  with.  It  is  said:\n<\/p>\n
 “In general an officer  is  one  who holds, or is  an incumbent  of, an  office, or  who performs  the duties   of  an office, or is lawfully invested  with an office. ‘Officer’ is  inseparably connected  with ‘office’; “there can be  no  officer  without  an  office””.\n<\/p>\n
Even if  therefore  the test  ordinarily   applied  were not  satisfied,  I  would  have come to the conclusion  that  B. M. And Co.,   held an  office  or place of  profit under the Company,  it  being   an  “officer”.\n<\/p>\n
 (13)  Coming  then to the next question  of the applicability  of  clause (d) of  Section 261(1) of the Companies Act,  the question is whether  defendant  No. 2 is an officer  or employee   of B. M.  And Co. At  this  stage the  terms of the power of  attorney  may be advantageously considered. At the outset it must  be  mentioned that  he  is  the power of  attorney  holder not of the directors  but  of  the company  itself  and that  could only  be  provided the  company  passed  resolution for the purpose.  I  may  also  ment on that  defendant  No.  2 has  been shy in the   matter of  producing  the relevant documents  in  regard  to  his  appointment. The  recitals  in the power  of  attorney,  however, do  show  that  it  was  at the  desire of the company that  the  power was given to  him along  with  one another.  It  says  that the  company  <\/p>\n
 “nominates,  constitutes  and  appoints  the said   two gentlemen   jointly  and\/or severally  to  be its true and  lawful   attorneys  for  it  in its name and  on its behalf  as one of the  partners of the said firm of  Agarwal  and Co.,  for  the purposes of  exercising   all  powers and  duties in connection with the said  firm  of  Agarwal  and Co.,  or in  any  name the same  partnership  may  be  carried on”\n<\/p>\n
and to do the  following  acts  etc.  Thereafter it   goes onto  enumerate what  these two attorneys  could  do  on behalf of the company  in  the partnership  firm of Agarwal  and Co.  There is no doubt, looking to the terms of the power  of  attorney, that   large discretionary  powers  are given  to the  attorneys   including  the power to  make decisions  as and when  required   in  the affairs  of the  business.  The power,  in effect,  gives  the sole management  to defendant  No. 2  and  the other,  of all  the  affairs of  the company  qua  the firm and  as such they would  also have a large  measure of management  of the Mills  is  any other  partner  would have.\n<\/p>\n
  (14)  The word “office”  has no specific  meaning.  It is a word of very large import and has been interpreted differently in connection with different statutes in   its  context.  A  few  of meanings  as given in  Webster’s  Dictionary are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “(1) that which a person does for,  or with  reference to, another  or others;  a service;\n<\/p>\n
  (2) that  which  one ought  to  do or must do..  . . .  .. . ;\n<\/p>\n
  (a) duty connected with an  occupation, position  etc. . . . .  .;\n<\/p>\n
 (b) position of trust or ministration.\n<\/p>\n
  (6)  (a) A  Special  duty,  trust,  charge or position   conferred  by an  exercise of Governmental  authority  and for  a public  purpose; a  position of  trust or  authority  conferred by  an  act  of  governmental power;  a right to  exercise  a public  function or  employment   and  receive  the  emoluments  (if  any)   thereto belonging  .. . . . . .In its  fuller sense  an  office  embraces the elements   of tenure,  duration,   duties and  emoluments  but the element  of  emoluments  is not essential  to the existence of   an office.\n<\/p>\n
 (B)  In a  wider sense, any  position  or place in the  employment   of the Government,  esp. One of trust or authority; also,  that  of an  employee  of a corporation   invested  with a part of  the executive  authority;.. . . . . .  .”\n<\/p>\n
 In  Corpus Juris  Secundum,  Vol  67  at p. 96  where several definitions   have been given it  is said:\n<\/p>\n
 “The  term ‘office’  has various  meanings  and has  been  defined  as a duty  or charge a place of trust,  or  a right   to  exercise a public or private employment  and to take  the fees and  emoluments  thereof.  An  office may  exist  although there is  no  incumbent  thereof  or  emoluments  attaching  thereto.  The term ‘office’ is one which  is employed  to conferee  various  meanings, and no one   definition thereof can be  relied on for all purposes and occasions. When used  in any   proper  sense,  the  term  implies a  duty or  duties to be performed,  and that  it is generally  agreed   that a position  is an office when  the  elements of trust, honour  and  compensation  combine  with  definite duties and responsibilities.”\n<\/p>\n
and at p. 97   in  connection  with  “officer” it is said:\n<\/p>\n
 “Although   many  definitions  of  “officer”   have been attempted, the meaning   thereof  varies with the  connection in which the term is  used, and  the  courts have questioned  the  possibility of  framing  a  definition which  will be  general  in its  application  and  meet  the requirements  of  all cases  which may  be presented.  In general  an officer is one  who  holds, or is  an incumbent  of, an office  or who performs the  duties  of an office, or is lawfully   invested   with an  office.”\n<\/p>\n
By these  tests defendant No.  2 must  clearly be  regarded as an  officer of B. M.  And Co.\n<\/p>\n
 (15)  I  may  at this stage  refer  with advantage  to the  definition of  the  word “manager”  which  is  given in Section  2(24)  of the Act which says “manager”  means  an  individual subject  to the superintendence, control  and direction  of the Board  of directors, has  the management  of  the whole or  substantially  the  whole of the  affairs  of  a company  and includes  a director  or any other person occupying   the position of a  manager,   by  whatever name  called,  and  whether  under a contract  of  service or not.  The definition  of the word  “manager” is very wide, and  whatever  be the  nomenclature employed by the  parties, if  large  powers of  management  of  substantially  the whole business  of the company are vested in a person then that   person   becomes the  manger.  Looking  to the terms of the power  of  attorney,  there cannot  be  any doubt that  qua the affairs  of the company   in the partnership   defendant No. 2  is  a manger.  It is  argued  both  by  Mr. Amin  and by   Mr. Nariman  that  B. M.  And  Co., are doing  several  businesses one of them being  that of managing  agency  and  being  partner in the  Agarwals  and  that  the two  power  holders  have nothing  to do with the    rest of the business of  B. M.  And  Co, and therefore they cannot  be  regarded as  officers  of the company.   The  argument   sounds  a little  stange.  If  a company  has  got  a dozen  branches  and employs  managers  to  manage the branches  it  will not  be  possible  to  hold that  such  managers  are  not  either  the  employees  or  officer of the company.  Though,  therefore, defendant  No. 2  may  be  entrusted  with the management  of the affairs   of the company  qua the    Agarwal’s  he is in  no  better and no worse  position than that  of a manager of  a branch who  is  nothing  but an employee  of the company.\n<\/p>\n
 (16) Mr. Amin  argues that as the defendant   No.  2  holds  only power  of  attorney, he  cannot  be called an officer.  He has  invited  my  attention to  Secs.  193(3), 199 and  204 of the Companies Act  and  argued  that in order that  a person be  called  an officer of the company,  there must  be   a designated  place and there must  be  a  method  of  appointment.  He  has  also referred to  sections  regarding  remuneration   like  sections  199 (1), 200 and   204. It is true  that these  sections  speak of appointment of  officers  and their  remuneration.  In  support of  his argument  Mr.  Amin has invited my  attention to  the case o f In re, Great  Western Forest of  Dean Coal  Consumers  Co.  (Ltd) Carter’s Case, (1886) 31 Ch.  D.,   496,  where it  was  held  that  a solicitor  who  acted as  such  in the ordinary course of his duties  as a solicitor  as he  would  have done  for other  clients could not  be  regarded    an officer  of  the  company. On  the  other hand  in the  case of  In  re, Liberator  Permanent  Benefit  Building  Society,  (1894)  71 Law Times  406; 2  Mans  100  a  solicitor  who was in the  regular  employment of  the company  was  held  to be   an officer of the company.  I  do  not think  these  cases  support  Mr. Amin.\n<\/p>\n
  (17)  Strongest  reliance,  however,  is  placed on In  re. Western Countries  Steam Bakeries  and  Milling  Co.   (1897)  1 Ch  at  p. 617. In that  case  Lord  Justice  Lindley  observed at p.  627 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “But  to be an  officer there must  be an office, and  an office imports  a recognised  position with rights  and  duties annexed to it, and it   would be an abuse of  words  to call a person  an officer who  fills  no such  position   either  de jure or de facto, but who happens  to  do  some of the work  which  he would  have to do  if  he  were  an officer in the  proper  sense  of the word.”\n<\/p>\n
I have no hesitation  in saying,  that  assuming  that  this must  be the  test  even under the present  Act it is satisfied   in case of defendant No. 2.  Appointment  to an  office  need not be  any particular   words;  nor  need it  be within   a particular  frame work.  This Court  said  in  ,  that   <\/p>\n
 “the word ‘office’  does not necessarily imply  that  it must have  existence apart  from the person who may  hold  it.  In order to make  use  of the special knowledge, talent,  skill  or  experience of certain  persons, posts  are  created, which   exist only for so  long  as they  hold  them.    It  will be  difficult  to hold that such   persons  are not  holders of office.”\n<\/p>\n
As  stated  by  me  earlier, it is not  that  defendant  No. 2 is  merely  a delegate of the directors for the purpose of  certain  ministerial  work; it is  the  company  who has  delegated all its powers to  him to  be  exercised  as  he  deemed  fit,  may  be because  of his   knowledge, talent, skill  or experience. I fail  to see if the position he  occupies  is not ‘office’   what can be  an office?  Even  otherwise in   view of the  wide definition  of the word “manager”  I  have not   the least doubt  that  defendant  No. 2  satisfies   the  test of being a manager  though   not  actually called so.  As to remuneration, decided cases  do  not  require that  there should  necessarily  be  remuneration  attached  to an  office.  He must  under these circumstances be regarded  as  an officer  of  B. M.  And  Co.\n<\/p>\n
 (18) Even  on the question of  remuneration I  am  not  prepared to take the   answer  of defendant No.  2 at its  face value.  Defendant  No. 2  stated that he  was  merely a power  of attorney   holder  and  was not   getting  any  remuneration  for  the work  that  he  did.  It  is  doubtful, however,  if these   gentlemen  would  devote  their  whole time  for the management  of the affairs  of the company  out of  charitable motives.   The  plaintiff  requested   that   defendant  No.  2  should offer himself  for examination   before the Court.  Technical   objections were  taken by the learned Counsel that he  could  not be  and  ought not  to  be  called upon to  give  evidence  fort  plaintiff.  It  has  been often  pointed out that  it is  the  duty of  parties to  place  the  best evidence   before the  Court. The  practice of refusing  to  enter the  witness-box when called  upon todo  so   and  requiring  the plaintiff   to call  the defendant  as his  own witness has  also   been  deprecated. It  is  clear, therefore, that  he  was  shy  of  giving   evidence  in  Court. Under these  circumstances  I  would  be justified  in drawing   an inference  against  him  and  hold that  he derived  some  remuneration.\n<\/p>\n
 (19)  It is clear that  the election  of  defendant No.  2 is  hit by clause (d)  read with Section 261(1)(a).\n<\/p>\n
  (20)  The  alternative  argument  of Mr. Gupte is  based on  the law of  partnership. A partnership firm  as such  has no  legal entity but is merely a    compendious  name  for all  partners   together.  He  therefore says  that each partner  must  be regarded the  Managing  Agent  of the Mills. Added to this   he  relies on the  fact that  each one of the  partners  was  a  signatory  to the agreement. It may  however  be  assumed for the purpose of this  case  that the agreement  was by the  firm of  Agarwals.  Herelies   on  the case of  Ramaben Thanawala  v.  Jyoti  Ltd.  .  In this  case,  the principle  was applied in reference  to  Section 348 of the Act.   It is  gratifying  to note  that  the  Legislature  amended  the section  in conformity  with the  view of the Court instead  of leaving  it to  interpretation.\n<\/p>\n
 (21) The argument of Mr. Amin  that the  scheme  of the Act  prevents  the application  of this principle also does not   impress me   though at  first sight it appears  attractive  enough.  He  refers  me  to several sections  in the  Act. In Section  2  sub-ss (3) (4) and  (25)  firm is  specially  dealt with.  All petitioners  in  a firm  may  not  be individuals  but may  be corporate   bodies  and  firms.  Comparison of these clauses  shows that special provision in  respect of  firm is  made to  bring  within  the meaning  larger  class  of persons than would  have  otherwise  been  possible.  This  could not   have  been achieved   by the  application of  general   principles.  Sections 221, 332, 334, 336, 337 are also  referred to.  Section 221  merely applies the general  law.  It  may  be that it was intended to avoid the  argument  that the partner  who  did   not take part in the management  could  not  be liable.  Same   is the case with  Section 332(5);  moreover, it is a penal  section and  may be intended to make the provision  certain.  Section 334  extends the principle  inasmuch as  it  provides that the    Agency  will terminate  on the insolvency  of a single  partner.   By  Section 34 of the  Partnership  Act  insolvency  of a single  partner   does not dissolve the  firm.  These provisions  are made as a matter of  caution  to prevent  escape  by   interpretation.  Even  in Section 261  provisions  regarding   a firm had  to  be made as the application of general  law  may   not  have been  effective. There is  nothing   in its  scheme  which should make  the application   of general  law  inappropriate.\n<\/p>\n
 (22)  In  the case of  an individual “Associate” has been  defined  to include a large  class of persons  who could not  under ordinary circumstances have  been brought  within it.  Can there  be  then any   justification, where  the managing  agent  happens  to  be a firm for  exclusing  the  associate   of a partner   although  both   in law and in fact the  partner  exercises  all  and  every  power that the  firm  could  exercise? Exclusion would rather  be  strange. I  do  not see any  injustice in applying  the  general  principle. In view of  the other provisions of the Act  and having regard to the objects of the Act in  general   and of Section  261  in particular  I  am  inclined  to accept  Mr. Gupte’s   argument,  that  each of the partners  must be regarded a  managing  agent  and if that  is  so it  cannot be  argued  that  defendant  No. 2 is  not an  associate of  B. M. And  Co., under clause (d) of sub-section (3)  Section 2 of the  Companies Act,  total  number of  members  being only twenty-three.\n<\/p>\n
 (The rest of  the judgment is not material for the purposes of this report).\n<\/p>\n
(23)   Appeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ramchandiram Mirchandani vs India United Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 30 January, 1961 Equivalent citations: AIR 1962 Bom 92, (1961) 63 BOMLR 678, ILR 1962 Bom 186 Bench: Patel JUDGMENT (3) The effects, good and bad, of the managing agency system have been well expressed by Mr. Justice Pratt in Parshuram Dataam […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-74110","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamchandiram Mirchandani vs India United Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 30 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramchandiram Mirchandani vs India United Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 30 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-20T00:31:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramchandiram Mirchandani vs India United Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 30 January, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-20T00:31:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961\"},\"wordCount\":3959,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961\",\"name\":\"Ramchandiram Mirchandani vs India United Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 30 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-20T00:31:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramchandiram Mirchandani vs India United Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 30 January, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramchandiram Mirchandani vs India United Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 30 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramchandiram Mirchandani vs India United Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 30 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-20T00:31:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramchandiram Mirchandani vs India United Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 30 January, 1961","datePublished":"1961-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-20T00:31:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961"},"wordCount":3959,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961","name":"Ramchandiram Mirchandani vs India United Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 30 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-20T00:31:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramchandiram-mirchandani-vs-india-united-mills-ltd-and-ors-on-30-january-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramchandiram Mirchandani vs India United Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 30 January, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74110","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74110"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74110\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}