LAWS(CAL)-1966-4-32

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR Vs. ABC

Decided On April 01, 1966
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR Appellant
V/S
ABC Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been set down for consideration of the Report of the Official Liquidator under section 519 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 18th June, 1963, an order was made by this Court ex parte on the application of the Official Liquidator for public examination of the Directors of Lohar Valley Tea Co., Ltd. On 25th Jan., 1964 four of the Directors of that Company took out a summons for an order that the order made on 18th June, 1963, be discharged, and the said Directors be exculpated from all charges made against them. On this application an order was made discharging the previous order made on 18th June, 1963, and leave was granted to the Liquidator and the Directors of Lohar Valley Tea Co., Ltd. to file affidavits with regard to the Report filed by the Liquidator for consideration of this Court.

(2.) The facts in this case and the circumstances leading up to the submissions of the Report by the Official Liquidator of this Company are identical with the facts of the Lohar Valley Tea Co., Ltd., in liquidation. The Directors of this Company are the same as the Directors in the Lohar Valley Tea Co., Ltd. Both the Companies carried on business as tea planters and in both cases the tea estate of the company was sold to the same company, namely, M." Chatterjee & Co. (Pvt.), Ltd.

(3.) The order made on 18th June, 1963, in Lohar Valley Tea Co., Ltd. was followed by an application by the Official Liquidator of that Company for setting aside or recalling the order discharging the order dated 18th June, 1963. On this application an order was made by this Court on 4th May, 1964, dismissing the application for recalling or, setting aside the order made on 18th June, 1963. I held in In re : Lohar Valley Tea Co., Ltd., (1964) 2 Comp L.J. 10 : 68 C.W.N. 938 that the said Directors would be entitled to file affidavits setting out their contentions therein challenging the jurisdiction of this Court to make an order for public examination of the Directors of that Company and that such affidavits and also any affidavit by the Liquidator should be taken by this Court into consideration, at the time when the Report would be considered by this Court. In terms of this order, three of the Directors of this Company and the Liquidator filed affidavits with regard to the report which is now before me for consideration.