B R SOMASHEKARAPPA Vs. VIGNAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner admittedly is an ex-employee of the respondent company. Many of the facts are not in dispute and they are, he was employed as a full time technical director on a specified salary and allowances and other perquisites that went with it. In accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act and the Rules made thereunder his appointment was approved by the Company Law Board. After the first period of appointment expired, it was further extended on 30-10-1973 for a period of five years. That was also approved by the Company Law Board. However, he tendered his resignation, allegedly at the request of the Government of Karnataka. His resignation came to be accepted by the respondent company. Thereafter he claimed that a sum of Rs. 4,02,828-90 was due on account of premature termination of his employment and the company not having paid the said amount despite repeated demands and a registered notice, he presented this petition under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act for an order winding up the company as it is unable to pay its debts.

(2.) That his appointment was in accordance with the order of appointment and the agreement which he was required to execute in that behalf is also not disputed. The agreement itself is not produced by the petitioner. However, he has filed an application to summon that agreement from the respondent company. I do not think that this Court should embark on investigation of the terms of the agreement until the petitioner establishes that he has the locus-standi to present a petition in this Court under Section 433 of the Companies Act.

(3.) Section 439 of the Companies Act provides for the persons who are competent to present a petition for winding up of a company registered under the Companies Act. Petitioner at best may come under the category of creditors specified in Section 439 of the Act, Even according to the document produced by him, Clause 9 of the approval granted by the Central Government, imposed as a condition provides for compensation being paid for premature termination before the expiration of the tenure fixed in the agreement of appointment as fixed by the company in General Meeting for loss of office. Such determination is not even pleaded in the petition nor prima facie proof of that has been presented to the Court.