RADHEY LAL MURARKA Vs. DIAMOND SUGAR MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by one of the two Defendants in a suit pending on the Original Side of this Court against an order of Bose, J., dated July 3, 1953, by which the learned Judge dismissed the Appellant's application for revocation of the leave granted to the Plaintiffs in the suit under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The grounds upon which the Appellant challenges the order of the learned Judge will be stated a little later.

(2.) The suit was brought by two companies, one of which is the Diamond Sugar Mills, Limited, which may be called the principal company, and another, the Murarka and Sons, Limited, which is a private limited company, acting as managing agents of the first Plaintiff. The Defendants in the suit were the Appellant, Radheylal Murarka, and another person, named Chini Lall Murarka, who were alleged to have been managing directors of the second Plaintiff, Murarka and Sons, Limited, at all material times. The Appellant was also alleged to have been a director of the first Plaintiff. The real Plaintiff, however, was the mill company, because it is stated in para. 16 of the plaint that the second Plaintiff had been joined only in order that the Court might adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the suit completely and effectually in the presence of all necessary parties.

(3.) The suit was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,81,776-1-6 pies, for the return of certain goods and articles, or in the alternative, for a decree for Rs. 5,00,000 as the price thereof; if Necessary, accounts and certain other ancillary reliefs. Briefly stated, the case of the Plaintiffs was that the Defendants had advanced or given credit for large sums of money, amounting to over Rs. 10,00,000, to various firms which were really their benamdars, that they had also advanced large sums to certain agencies opened by them, and, lastly, that they had removed large quantities of stores, electric fittings, furniture and other articles. It was staled that both the Defendants carried on business and otherwise personally worked for gain within the original jurisdiction of this Court, but it was also stated that they occupied a fiduciary position in relation to the Plaintiffs and were liable to account in Calcutta where the registered office of the mill company was situated.