1974 (1) TMI 78 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Appointment of a receiver in respect of properties of respondents.
2. Execution of orders under section 543 of the Companies Act against legal representatives.
3. Interpretation of Supreme Court decision regarding liabilities of legal representatives.

Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from an order directing the appointment of a receiver concerning the properties of the respondents in an application related to the winding up of a bank. The court had previously ordered the winding up of the bank and declared certain respondents liable for a substantial sum. Following appeals and the death of some respondents, applications were made for execution and appointment of a receiver, leading to the current appeals challenging the appointment of the receiver.

2. The main contention raised was whether orders under section 543 of the Companies Act could be executed against legal representatives of directors. The appellants argued that such orders could not be enforced against legal representatives. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision involving proceedings against directors, where the court discussed the liability of legal representatives and the scope of orders under the Companies Act. The Supreme Court held that orders could only affect the assets or estate of the deceased director, not compelling heirs to take action. However, the court in the present case found that the Supreme Court decision did not support the argument that orders under section 543 could not be executed against the estate of a deceased director in the hands of legal representatives.

3. The court analyzed the Supreme Court decision and concluded that it did not prohibit the execution of orders under section 543 against the estate of a deceased director in the hands of legal representatives. The Supreme Court's decision was seen as not directly addressing the issue of executing orders against legal representatives. The court found no basis to interfere with the lower court's order appointing a receiver, dismissing the appeals and upholding the appointment of the receiver.

In summary, the court upheld the appointment of a receiver in the case, rejecting the argument that orders under section 543 of the Companies Act could not be executed against legal representatives. The court's decision was based on an analysis of a relevant Supreme Court judgment, which did not support the appellants' contention.