9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Suit 2. Discharge of Liability 3. Applicability of Section 543 of the Indian Companies Act Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Suit: The appellants challenged the maintainability of the suit on the grounds that the liquidator, R. T. Naidu, being a member of the managing agency firm, could not maintain the suit. The court dismissed this argument, stating, "there is no substance in the point that R. T. Naidu cannot institute the suit, as the suit has been filed by him in his capacity as liquidator." Additionally, the court addressed whether Section 543 of the Indian Companies Act barred the suit. The court concluded that Section 543 is an enabling provision and does not deprive aggrieved parties of the remedy by way of a suit. It stated, "Section 543 is only an enabling provision, and it cannot be construed as depriving the aggrieved parties of a remedy by way of suit by reason only of the special procedure provided for therein." The court also noted that the suit was against the legal representatives of the deceased director, and not against the director himself, which further justified the maintainability of the suit. 2. Discharge of Liability: The appellants contended that the amount claimed had already been discharged by Venkatesalu Naidu. However, the court found that "the finding of the Court below, as regards the plea of alleged discharge, cannot be successfully challenged, in view of the state of evidence in the case." Consequently, it was clear that Venkatesalu Naidu was liable to pay the sum of Rs. 19,585.23, and his legal representatives, the present defendants, were equally liable for the payment of the amount. 3. Applicability of Section 543 of the Indian Companies Act: The appellants argued that Section 543 of the Indian Companies Act barred the remedy of a suit in a civil court regarding matters covered by it. The court examined Section 543, which allows the court to compel any person involved in the management of the company to repay or restore money or property misapplied or retained. The court clarified that Section 543 does not create new liabilities but provides a summary mode of enforcing existing rights, stating, "The foregoing provision does not create any new liability or new right; it only provides a summary mode of enforcing rights including rights created by the winding up which must otherwise have been enforced by the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court." The court concluded that Section 543 does not bar the maintainability of the suit, as it does not expressly or impliedly exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts. The court further noted that the suit was maintainable because it was against the legal representatives of the deceased director, and misfeasance proceedings under Section 543 could not be continued against legal representatives. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment and decree of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, which ordered the defendants to pay Rs. 19,585.23 to the plaintiff-respondent. The court held that the suit was maintainable, the plea of discharge was not substantiated, and Section 543 of the Indian Companies Act did not bar the remedy of a civil suit. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
