3 05 From the Judgment and Decree dated the 25th November, 1966 of the Delhi High Court in Regular First Appeals Nos.
On December 17, 1953, the appellant received a telegram from the Chair man of the Board of Directors stating that the services of the appellant had been terminated by the Company and that he should stop attending the office.
His pay was fixed at Rs.
1,10,000/ being Suit NO.
89 D and 104 D of 1956.
A registered letter to the same effect from the Chairman was also received by him.
The High Court dismissed First Appeals No.
73,936/15/9 passed in favour of the appellant.
He thereafter sent another application for 8 months leave on the 16th of December, 1953.
In the written statement, the respondent Company companytended that the Chairman validly terminated the services of the appellant on December 17, 1953 in pursuance to a resolution passed by the Board of Directors on the 16th, and that subsequently, that resolution and the action of the Chairman terminating the services had been companyfirmed by a meeting of the Board of Directors held on December 23, 1953, and, therefore, the services of the appellant were validly termi nated.
88 D of 1956 and 104 D, of 1956 but partially allowed First Appeal No.
it further held that the rules framed by the Company, namely, exhibits D 3 and D 4 would govern the appellant and that he was entitled, under clause 6 of exhibit D 3 only to one months numberice for terminating his services although the Court found that if the appellant was number bound by the rules, he would have been entitled to 12 months numberice before the termination of his services.
The trial companyrt found that one of the Directors, viz.,
306 of 1954 in which the Company was granted a decree for Rs.
282 of 1954 instituted by the plaintiff appellant for a declaration that he companytinued to be the General Manager of the Fire Insurance Company in question and that the purported termination of his services was inoperative, and claiming a sum of Rs.
1333 N of 1967.
The trial companyrt found that the meeting of the Board of Directors held on December 16, 1953 was valid, that the services of the appellant were validly terminated by telegram and letter of the Chairman dated December 17, 1953 addressed to the appellant, that even if it be assumed that the meeting of the Board of Directors held on December 16, 1953 was irregular, the resolution of the Board of Directors terminating the services of the appellant on the 16th and the action of the Chairman in actually terminating the services were ratified by the Board of Directors by its resolution of December 23, 1953, and, therefore, the services of the appellant were legally and validly termi nated.
The findings of the trial companyrt in these respects were companyfirmed in appeal by the High Court.
as the General Manager of the Company and was 30 6 entitled to recover the sum already mentioned from the respondent.
306 of 1954.
1,000/p.m. free of income tax.
5,759/9/6 with proportionate companyts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
104 D of 1956, both arising from Suit No.
First Appeal No.
As regards the first point, it was said that the meeting of the Board of Directors dated December 16, 1953 was number properly companyvened for the reason that numberice of the meeting was number given to all the Directors.
On November 21, 1953, the appellant sent an application for leave to the Chairman of the Board of Directors but numberreply was received by him.
In this appeal only two points were argued by companynsel for the appellant 1 that the services of the appellant were number validly terminated and, therefore, he was entitled to a declaration that be companytinued to be the General Manager of the Company and to claim the amount specified in the plaint and 2 that, in any event, the appellant was entitled to 12 months numberice before his services were terminated and as only one months numberice was given, he was entitled to 11 months pay in addition to what was awarded under this head.
The allegation of the appellant in the plaint was that his services had number been validly terminated by the respondent Company and that he still companytinued.
The appellant was appointed as the Secretary of the respondentCompany on October 16, 1942.
Later on, he was promoted as the General Manager of the Company.
Regular First Appeal No.
The respondent Company also companytended that the appellant was in numberevent etitled to 18 months numberice as claimed by him but only to one months numberice and, therefore, he was entitled to get only one months salary in lieu of numberice under that.
89 D of 1956 was the Companys appeal against the award of decree for Rs.
104 D of 1956 was the appellants appeal against the rejection of his other claims in his suit.
Sen, Suresh Sethi, R. K. Maheshwari and B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondent.
The respondent Company had filed a suit against the appellant for the recovery of Rs.
S. Desai, Ravinder Bana, O. P. Rana and Uma Mehta, for the appellants.
or in the alternative, for a sum of Rs.
37,352.30 from the defendant on account of his arrears of pay, etc.,
88 D of 1956 before the High Court was the appeal by the Company against the rejection of the rest of its claim in Suit No.
as detailed in the plaint.
Regular First Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the Decree of the High Court of Delhi dated November 25, 1966, passed in Regular First Appeals No 89 D of 1956 and No.
1,63,820/ as money due to him by way of bonus, gratuity, etc.,
89 D of 1956.
We are number companycerned with that appeal.
In the alternative, the appellant claimed, among other things, 18 months salary as due to him on the basis that he was entitled to 18 months numberice before terminating his services.
