A M MENON CUSTODIAN Vs. CONCEPT COMMUNICATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Petition the Custodian seeks recovery of certain amounts from the 1st Respondent and/or 3rd Respondent. Respondent No. 3 is a partnership firm of which the only partners are Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Respondent No. 4 was, at the relevant time, the Managing Director of Respondent No.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 5 was, at the relevant time, the Executive Director of Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is a Notified Party. 2.It is an admitted position that on 8th April 1992 a sum of Rs.1 crore had been advanced by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 got Notified on 2nd July 1992. Thereafter Respondent No. 1 purported to repay certain amounts to the Custodian. The 1st Respondent claimed that those were the only amounts remaining due and payable by them to Respondent No. 2. The Court appointed an Auditor to look into the books of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 and reconcile the accounts. The Auditor was to ascertain what amounts, if any, were due and payable by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2. The Auditor has submitted his Report. The amended Petition is based on that Report.

(3.) COURT has been shown the advertisements issued in the Economic Times and the Times of India. From the advertisements it appears that the 2nd Respondent had sponsored these advertisements. Therefore the item of advertisements in the Economic Times and Times of India being amounts of Rs. 32,685/-, Rs. 21,290/-, and Rs. 43,928/- are accepted as being payable by 2nd Respondent to 1st Respondent. However Court has not been shown any proof nor given any explanation as to how and why there was a balance of Rs. 18,065/- which is supposedly brought forward. In the absence of any explanation, this amount cannot be allowed to be deducted. Similarly no explanation has been given nor any documents shown to Court that the preparation of folder for the Indian Institute of Merchant Banking Seminar was at the instance of the 2nd Respondent. In the absence of any proof the claim to Rs. 15,037/- cannot be allowed. No explanation is given to Court as to who is Dr. J. C. Verma or how he was connected, if at all, with 2nd Respondent. It is not even claimed that this was a person working in the 2nd Respondent Company. Thus, in the absence of any explanation, the cost of Rs. 2,547/- for air ticket of Dr. J. C. Verma cannot be permitted. Admittedly the cost of the air tickets in the sum of Rs. 13,520/- is incurred after the date of Notification. There can be no justification for incurring costs on behalf of 2nd Respondent or their personnel after 2nd Respondent was Notified. The claim for Rs. 13,520/- is also thus disallowed. Thus out of the sum of Rs. 1,47,067/- the 1st Respondent is not allowed to deduct the sums of Rs. 18,065/-, Rs. 15,037.50, Rs. 2,542/- and Rs. 13,520/-. The amounts must be paid to the Custodian with interest and in the manner set out hereafter.