DIKSHIT AND CO LTD Vs. MATHURA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This small case presents an interesting question of law.

(2.) The respondent to this appeal was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance. He sued for recovery, inter alia, of a sum of Rs. 551. He was one of the directors of the defendant company who are now appealing in this Court. In paragraph 2 of the plaint the respondent says: The defendant company was constituted promoter and managing agent of the National Transport Service Company, Ltd. In this capacity, the defendant company entrusted this work to the plaintiff that he should select other directors for the said company and perform all the work in connection with the registration and promotion of the said company. As regards remuneration for this work, it was settled that the defendant company would pay Rs. 551 to the plaintiff besides travelling allowance.

(3.) It is for recovery of this sum of Rs. 551 and for recovery of some other sums with which we are no longer concerned that the suit was brought.