PRATAP B VORA Vs. SUDARSAN CHITS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only contention canvassed in this revision petition is that the Official Liquidator and not the officers of the Respondent-Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. , which is under liquidation, can file and prosecute the execution application for executing the money decree passed against the revision petitioner way back in 1979. THE contention has no merit whatsoever. THE Kerala High Court, which has passed the order of liquidation in respect of the Respondent-Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. , has also passed orders which clearly empower the officers of that company to represent the Company in suits and/or other legal proceedings filed by or against the Company in various courts. By the order dated July 31, 1985, the Kerala High Court has also clarified that the Official Liquidator need not be a party to those proceedings. THE order dated July 31, 1985passed by the Kerala High Court, which is produced at Exhibit "b" to the paper book, no where says that all execution petitions will be signed by the Official Liquidator and they will be prosecuted or defended by the officers of the Company. THEre is a further order passed by the Kerala High Court on September 28, 1993 which also authorises the officer of the Company to represent the Company, commence legal proceedings, appoint Advocates, agree to consent orders, compromise, or do whatever necessary to recover the amount due or to effect settlement, in any pending or future proceedings in any court in India, on behalf of the Official Liquidator. Thus, the two orders, one dated July 31, 1985 Exhibit "b" and the other dated September 28, 1993, leave no room for doubt that the officers of the - Company are empowered to initiate and prosecute the legal proceedings against others. THEse legal proceedings also include the execution application filed for executing the decrees obtained in favour of the Company.

(2.) THE contention is that the revision petitioner has, before the executing Court i. e. Bombay City Civil Court, filed some another order dated 18th January, 1990, and in paragraph 6 of that order, it has been observed by the Kerala High Court that by order dated July 31, 1985 in C. M. P. No.21746 of 1985 the Kerala High Court had directed that all execution petitions will be signed by the official Liquidator and it will be prosecuted or defended by the officers of the Company. Now, as I read the order dated July 31, 1985 passed by the Kerala High Court in C. M. P. No.21746 of 1985 Exhibit "b" to the paper book, no where the order states that all execution petitions will be signed by the Official Liquidator. THErefore, there is a clear error in the observations made in paragraph 6 of the order dated January 18, 1990. If in the order dated July 31, 1985, the Kerala High Court had directed that all execution petitions would be signed by the Official Liquidator then in the copy of that order Exhibit "b" produced by the Petitioner that direction should be very much there. In Exhibit-"b", there is no such direction. Even subsequent order dated September 28, 1993 which authorises the officers of the Company to represent the Company, commence legal proceedings, appoint Advocates, agree to consent orders, compromise, or do whatever necessary to recover the amount due or to effect settlement,in any pending or future proceedings in any Court in India on behalf of the Official Liquidator no where states that the Kerala High Court had in its order dated July 31, 1985 directed that all execution petitions will be signed by the Official Liquidator. THErefore, there is one of the two possibilities either the copy of the order dated January 18, 1990 filed by the Petitioner is not correct or it is clear that the order dated January 18, 1990 does not correctly represent the contents of the earlier order dated July 31, 1985. In either view of the matter, the argument that the execution petition filed by the officers of the Company against the revision petitioner having not been signed by the Official Liquidator, the execution proceedings should fail, has no merit whatever. THE Revision Petition is, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged. THE request for stay of the order is rejected. Rule discharged. .