MARUTI LTD Vs. P R SASIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS leading to the filing of this petition briefly are : Petitioner No. 1 was ordered to be wound up by an order dated March 6, 1978, passed by the learned company judge in C. P. No. 126 of 1977, which was presented on May 16, 1977. The official liquidator attached to this court was appointed as the provisional liquidator of the company by an order dated July 22, 1977. The undertaking of petitioner No. 1 had been acquired by petitioner No. 2 by virtue of the Maruti Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1980 (Act 64 of 1980), inclusive of the right, title and interest excepting the liabilities. Respondent No. 1 was an employee of petitioner No. 1. He was paid a sum of Rs. 6,247 (Rs. 2,247 plus Rs. 4,000 on account of leave encashment and supervision charges respectively ). The said payment was made under the orders of respondent No. 3, Shri B. M. Pant, the then general manager of petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 2, Shri S. M. Rege, who was the secretary of petitioner No. 1 at the relevant time, was asked to render his explanation as to how the payments had been made to respondent No. 1. In his explanation, respondent No. 2 stated that the payments had been made under the orders of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 stated that the payments had been made on receipt of expert advice from respondent No. 2. Since the payment was made without a valid authorisation by the board of directors of petitioner No. 1, all the respondents have been made jointly and severally liable for refund of the amount with interest.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3, in his written statement, justified the payment of the amount towards leave encashment and supervision charges. It was also pleaded that, the payments under the head "supervision charges and leave encashment" were made to various employees under the instructions of Shri Sanjay Gandhi, one of the directors of petitioner No. 1.

(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this claim ? OPD 2. Whether the petitioners have not obtained sanction from this court before filing this petition and as such the petition is not maintainable ? OPD 3. Whether the petition is barred by time ? OPD