SATINDER SINGH Vs. MARUTI LIMITED IN LIQUIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS Nos, 1 and 2 claimed Rs. 1,40,692. 10 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum from the appellants as well as respondents Nos. 3 and 4, jointly and severally and preferred a petition under Section 446 read with Section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was alleged that the respondent-claimant company had entered into business transactions with Capital Steel Industries for works and jobs to be performed by the said firm for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. On finalisation of accounts, it was found that a sum of Rs. 1,12,567. 10 was due from the appellants as well as respondents Nos. 3 and 4. In the claim petition, respondent No. 3 has been sued through its manager and managing partner Jaswant Singh Bhatia and respondent No. 4 Jaswant Singh Bhatia in his individual capacity.

(2.) THE said claim of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was refuted by the appellants. The capacity of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to file the claim against the appellants was challenged. The liability of the appellants was also challenged on the ground that since the respondent-claimants had not explained how the appellants were liable or connected with Capital Steel Industries, the firm against which the claim had been put forth, the appellants were not liable. The appellants' liability was further challenged for any acts and omissions of Jaswant Singh Bhatia and Inder Singh Bhatia who might have entered into any transaction with the respondent-claimants. It was stated that the appellants were neither necessary nor proper parties. It was specifically stated that the appellants had nothing to do with the respondent-firm during the relevant period and, consequently, no claim was maintainable against them. It was further alleged that Jaswant Singh Bhatia, who might have entered into some dealings with the respondent-claimant company, could not make the appellant liable for any of his acts and omissions.

(3.) THE evidence of the respondent-claimant company was being recorded when a petition for amendment of the written statement was made and it was contended that facts had come to the notice of the appellant-applicants that Inder Singh and Jaswant Singh had no connection with Capital Steel Industries, therefore, the appellants be permitted to take a preliminary objection in the following terms :