LAXMI NARAYAN UDYOG LTD Vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Bose, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant in CA 131 of 2017. He seeks direction in terms of prayers (a) and (b) in Judge's Summons. The prayers are reproduced below:

(2.) Ms. Sikdar, learned advocate appears on behalf of Official Liquidator and relies upon impugned letters. She submits, by letter 3rd February, 2017, the office had pointed out that affidavit filed by applicant did not contain any documentary evidence in support of claim nor ledger account had been annexed. By impugned letter dated 23rd February, 2017, the office drew applicant's attention to rules 149, 151, 159 and 160. There has not been compliance and as such, the office does not have proof of claim from applicant.

(3.) It appears to Court Mr. Bose has contended admission. The admission was made by the company (in liquidation) with consequence for direction of its winding up. Now, the office wants proof of debt. Applicant cannot claim Official Liquidator to be bound by admission made by the company (in liquidation) causing it to suffer direction for winding up. Sections 17 to 21 in Evidence Act , 1872 are relevant for purpose of applicable law regarding admissions. Section 17 defines admission as made by any of the persons and under the circumstances mentioned thereunder. Persons, mentioned thereafter in the Act, parties, suitor in representative character, party interested in subject matter, person from whom interest is derived parties to the suit and persons whose position must be proved against party to suit. Where the company (in liquidation) is said to have admitted a debt owing to applicant, Official Liquidator is not included as a person with regard to such admission made a by party in the winding up action. Official Liquidator came in upon order of winding up. Admission by the company (in liquidation), relied upon by Court to direct winding up, therefore, is not available as proof required by the office. This is so because the office, not being a party, had not made the admission but is requiring proof of debt. The office, if can be said to be a person, has derived interest from a party in the winding up proceeding under the statute but that situation is not provided for in Evidence Act , with regard to admissions.