TULSIDAS MUNDHRA Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order made and judgment delivered on December 10, 1979, by Mr. Justice Salil K. Roy Chowdhury. By the said order the learned Judge directed that Sri Tulsidas Mundhra be arrested to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. This order came to be passed because there was misfeasance. The order was to the following effect ;

(2.) Sri Haridas Mundhra, as the order states, was the principal Director and Sri Tulsidas Mundhra, his brother, was another Director were found guilty of breach of the fiduciary manner in which the Directors are supposed to act. Mr. Justice A. K. Basu examined the judgment debtor under Order 21 of the Civil P. C. and certain facts came out which indicate that the gross income of the appellant was Rs. 70,000/- but his assessable income came to about Rs. 15,000/-per month, according to him. The appellant had employed an accountant. He had an office at the Tagore Castle and his wife was a Director of several companies and further the appellant, Sri Tulsidas Mundhra, was also a Director of several companies which had all gone into liquidation and in most of these companies, Sri Haridas Mundhra and other members of his family were interested. It also appears from the said examination as also from the subsequent examination by Mr. Justice Salil K. Roy Chowdhury under Section 51 of the Code that the appellant stays in a flat in Southern Avenue, which was quite spacious. Furthermore, he and his family members used to travel by Air for personal and business reasons to various parts of India. He does not seem to have given an indication that he had little income and money or he had any financial stringency either in his living or for his movement. He had also given an impression, that he could raise money from the market and he had credit in the market. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that from the examination of the judgment debtor, on both occasions, the following facts emerged : (1) the judgment debtor had an income of Rs. 70,000/- per year, (2) he and the members of his family used to move by Air, (3) he was still carrying on the business, (4) he had an office at Tagore Castile, (5) he had a residential flat in the Southern Avenue, Calcutta, which was quite spacious, (6) the judgment debtor was a Director of several companies all of which had gone into liquidation, (7) his wife had substantial means, shares and assets. Before Mr. Justice Salil Kr. Roy Chowdhury, the judgment debtor was asked how he was able to raise money for his movement by Air and he said that he used to take loans from X, Y & Z. As we have mentioned hereinbefore, there does not seem to be any dearth of money either for his movement or for his living. He had also given in marriage four of his daughters and one of his daughters, at the relevant time, was still unmarried. In these facts and circumstances, Mr. Justice Roy Chowdhury found against the judgment debtor under Section 51 of the Civil P.C. and therefore, he directed his arrest and simple imprisonment for three months.

(3.) The appellant has now appealed be-fore us on the ground that none of the ingredients necessary to bring the appellant under the mischief of Section 51 of the Civil P. C. had been proved. It was, secondly argued that in any event Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 51 of the Code does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thirdly, it was urged that Section 51 in any event has given the Court discretion and that the learned Judge has not properly exercised in the fact is and circumstances of the case his discretion.