9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Fraudulent preferences under Section 531 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Commercial insolvency of the bank. 3. Set-off of mutual debts. 4. Dominant intent to prefer creditors. 5. Propriety of the order for repayment to the liquidator. Detailed Analysis: 1. Fraudulent Preferences under Section 531 of the Companies Act, 1956: The judgment revolves around CMP. No. 144 of 1958, where the liquidator of Popular Bank Ltd. sought a declaration that certain payments or adjustments in the bank's books were fraudulent preferences. The court examined whether these entries, made shortly before the bank suspended its business, constituted fraudulent preferences under Section 531 of the Companies Act, 1956. The section stipulates that any transfer of property, payment, or other act related to property made within six months before the commencement of winding up, which would be deemed a fraudulent preference in individual insolvency, shall be deemed a fraudulent preference of its creditors and invalid. 2. Commercial Insolvency of the Bank: The onus was on the liquidator to prove that the bank was commercially insolvent when the impugned entries were made. The court upheld the learned judge's finding that from April 1956, the bank was unable to pay its debts as they became due from its own money, indicating commercial insolvency. This conclusion was based on a detailed examination of the bank's financial conditions and operations from 1954 onwards. 3. Set-off of Mutual Debts: The appellants argued that set-offs made prior to winding up were legal and could not amount to fraudulent preferences. The court examined whether the liabilities of the appellants and the bank could be mutually set off under Section 529 of the Companies Act read with Section 47 of the Insolvency Act. The court referenced various cases, including In re Washington Diamond Mining Company and In re Travancore National & Quilon Bank Ltd., concluding that the appellants were sureties without personal obligations. Therefore, the mutual dealings required for set-off under Section 47 were not present, and the voluntary set-offs before winding up were deemed fraudulent preferences. 4. Dominant Intent to Prefer Creditors: The court emphasized the need to prove a dominant intent to prefer one creditor over others for a transaction to be deemed a fraudulent preference. The presence of a legal right does not conclusively indicate that the action was in the exercise of such right. The court found that the bank's actions, such as converting fixed deposits into short-term deposits and making adjustments shortly before closure, indicated a dominant intent to prefer certain creditors. This conclusion was drawn from circumstantial evidence and the inherent improbability of the appellants' explanations. 5. Propriety of the Order for Repayment to the Liquidator: The court addressed the propriety of the order directing creditors to repay the amounts received by adjustment. It was contended that the court lacked jurisdiction under Section 531 to order repayment and that such an order would penalize creditors for fraudulent preferences committed by the bank. The court found merit in the contention that repayments by adjustment should not result in creditors being called upon to repay amounts they had not received in cash. The court set aside the direction for repayment, allowing the liquidator to institute appropriate proceedings against the parties concerned for obtaining payments. Appeal-Specific Analysis: A.S. No. 544 of 1961: The appeals by respondents Nos. 9 and 10 were dismissed. The court found that the bank's adjustments of Rs. 20,000 in favor of D. Lakshmana Naik & Sons were fraudulent preferences. The appellants' arguments regarding set-off and joint family funds were rejected. A.S. No. 595 of 1961: The appeal by the 21st respondent was dismissed. The court found that the payment of Rs. 2,000 to Sreenivasa Mallan was a fraudulent preference, arranged through the appellant's husband, who was a director and legal adviser of the bank. A.S. No. 620 of 1961: The appeal by respondents Nos. 1 and 13 was partly allowed. The court found that the transactions involving the first respondent were fraudulent preferences, but the transaction involving the 13th respondent was not. The court held that the transfer of Rs. 6,000 to the "Sundry liabilities account" for the purchase of bank property was not a fraudulent preference. A.S. No. 594 of 1961: The appeal by the second respondent was allowed based on the principle of res judicata. The court found that a previous judgment had already addressed the issue of fraudulent preferences, and the liquidator had not appealed against that judgment. Conclusion: The court dismissed A.S. Nos. 544 and 595 of 1961 with costs to the liquidator, allowed A.S. No. 594 of 1961 without costs, and partly allowed A.S. No. 620 of 1961 with costs payable to the 13th respondent by the liquidator. The court set aside the direction for repayment to the liquidator, allowing the liquidator to pursue appropriate proceedings for obtaining payments.
|
