OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF AMFORT Vs. CHHITTAR LUHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, perused the company application, reply filed thereto by the respondent and the rejoinder filed by the Official Liquidator. In this application under Sections 446 and 477 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the prayers made by the Official Liquidator of M/s. Amfort Agro Finance Ltd. (in liquidation) read as under:

(2.) IN the reply to the application the respondent has admitted that he took a loan of Rs. 1,96,000 for purchase of an HMT Tractor and a Trolley from the company (in liquidation) in the month of March 1994. It is submitted that for this purchase of the tractor and trolley a sum of Rs. 48,000 was paid by the respondent as margin money to the company (in liquidation) The company (in liquidation) also recovered a sum of Rs. 3,920 from the respondent on 15 -3 -1994 as service charges, but no service was effected. The next averment made is that the Official Liquidator in the application has not shown the payments made by the respondent to the company in liquidation. The claim filed by the Official Liquidator is stated to be barred by time. The amount of interest, as per the case of the respondent, is not at all chargeable as there was no agreement to pay interest. It is urged that otherwise also the respondent could not be said to be defaulter for the reason that he was always ready and willing to repay the loan money as per schedule, but the company itself went in liquidation. Lastly a defence has been taken that on account of negligence committed by the company (in liquidation) by not registering the vehicle and by not getting it insured in an accident one Ram Gopal filed a claim case before the MACT Tonk on 16 -10 -1996 which was registered as Claim Case No. 243 of 1996 - Ram Gopal v. Khemraj in which the respondent is one of the non -applicant. In that case the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 11,00,000 as compensation. On account of negligence of the company in liquidation in not getting the vehicle duly insured and registered, the claim has to be reimbursed by the company. The prayer has been made for rejection of the application and a direction to the Official Liquidator to contest the claim case before the MACT and in case any award is passed by the MACT, the same to be paid by the Official Liquidator.

(3.) SUB -section (5) of Section 477 of the Act provides that if, on his examination, any person so summoned admits that he is indebted to the company, the Court may order him to pay to the provisional liquidator or, as the case may be, the liquidator at such time and in such manner as to the Court may seem just, the amount in which he is indebted, or any part thereof, either in full discharge of the whole amount or not, as the Court thinks fit, with or without costs of the examination. Sub -section (7) of Section 477 lays down that the orders made under Sub -sections (5) and (6) shall be executed in the same manner as decrees for the payment of money or for the delivery of property under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.