VINOD P C Vs. MAYURAM CHITTIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred against the common judgment in C.C. Nos. 615/2008 and 618/2008 in Company Petition Nos. 34/2002 and 53/2002, whereby the learned single Judge found that appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 53,500/- in C.C. No. 615/2008 and a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in C.C. No. 618/2008 to the company under liquidation. The claim was for Rs. 60,000/- each. But, it was found that a sum of Rs. 6,500/- was due to the appellant from the company. That amount was deducted from the claim in C.C. No. 615/2008 and the balance Rs. 53,500/- was ordered to be realised from the appellant. The brief facts leading to the appeals are that in the liquidation proceedings initiated against the respondent company, it was brought to the notice of the Official Liquidator that the appellant was a subscriber of two kuries, namely, TK1/11 and TK1/12, run by the company, both kuries bid in auction and received the bid amount. As per the ledgers, which were marked as Exts.A1 And A4, it was noticed that up to December 2000 the appellant remitted only thirty five kuri instalments and fifteen instalments in both kuries were due from the appellant at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per installment. It is on that basis the claim was lodged.

(2.) The appellant took up a contention that he had remitted the entire instalments in the above two kuries and at the time of receiving the prize amount he had executed kuri security bonds in addition to hypothecation of the property and that after discharging the entire kuri instalments, the kuri security bonds and the hypothecation deeds were got back along with the title deeds. It was even alleged that the property hypothecated was subsequently sold by the appellant and that no amount was due in respect of the above two kuries. It was also contended that company was functioning up to 2002 and that the appellant was a subscriber of two other kuries also. In those kuries, the appellant had remitted instalments up to May 2002 and payments are recorded in Exts.D1 and D2, the passbooks and that the appellant is entitled to get back that amount. With these pleadings, the parties went for evidence.

(3.) On the side of the Official Liquidator, an employee of the company was examined as CW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. The appellant was examined as RW1 and Exts.D1 and D2 were also marked.