P A TENDOLKAR Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five appeals arise out of the order of the learned company judge (Narayana Pai J.) [1964]34 Comp. Cas. 34.in misfeasance proceedings against the directors and officers of a banking company by name. The Supreme Bank of India Ltd., taken on an application of the official liquidator during the course of its winding up proceedings.

(2.) Respondents Nos. I to 7, namely, S.G. Pant Balekundri, S.K. Samant, P.A. Tendolkar , D. R Angolkar, L.S. Ajagaonkar, R.W. Porwal and R.N. Kalghatgi , in the proceedings before the learned the company judge , were the directors of the bank while respondents Nos. 8 to13 were its officers and respondent No. 14, the auditor of the bank, During the pendency of the misfeasance proceedings, respondents Nos. I.4,II and 14 dies. The learned company judge held that the misfeasance proceedings could not be continued against the legal representatives of these four deceased respondents and dismissed the application as against those legal representatives. The learned company judge also held that the application filed by the official liquidator was barred by time as against respondents Nos. 8 to 14 who were not directors of the bank, but was within time as against respondents Nos. I to 7 who were the directors of the bank. Hence the application as against respondents Nos. 8 to 14 was dismissed as being barred by time.

(3.) The learned company judge made an order against respondents Nos.2,3,5,6and 7 directing them to contribute jointly and severally, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 to the assets of the bank in winding up with interest thereon at six percent. per annum from the date of the order till payment. There was a further direction that if each of respondents Nos. 6 and 7, namely R.W. Porwal and R.N. Khalghatgi, contributed a sum of Rs. 15,000 within three months from the date of the order with interest at six percent per annum from the date of the order with interest at six percent per annum from the date of the order till payment, he would be believed of further liability and that if either of them failed to make the payment as aforesaid, he would forfeit the relief so granted to him.