Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1946 (6) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . It appears that on the 23rd September, 1932, the defendant company was wound up, and under the orders of this Court Mr. Ranjit Roy, a chartered accountant, was appointed the official liquidator. The latter took charge of the affairs of the company in the beginning of December, 1932, and continued to function as such until the 1st May, 1933. On that date under an order of this Court a reconstruction scheme was sanctioned and in pursuance thereof, the liquidator Mr, Roy delivered possession of the affairs of the company in November, 1933, to a Board of Directors, consisting of the plaintiff and four others. Thereafter the work of the company was carried on under the direction of this Board till May, 1934. On the 5th May, 1934, the said reco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ade to the defendant company in the following circumstances. When the first reconstruction scheme was sanctioned on the 1st May, 1933, there was a condition precedent that the sum of Rs. 7,000 should be paid by the company for meeting the costs of the liquidation, including the cost of the general meeting as well as the remuneration of the liquidator. As the assets of the company were insufficient to enable it to deposit Rs. 7,000, the plaintiff and another director Mr. S.C. Das together advanced the sum of Rs. 4,445 from their own funds. When the liquidator took charge again on the 8th June, 1934, Mr. S.C. Das was paid in full out of the assets of the company, but the sum of Rs. 1,760 remained outstanding out of the dues to the plaintiff. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 00 as remuneration the defendant company contended that a reference under clause (14) of the second scheme was made to the arbitrator who rejected the same and no suit was maintainable in a civil Court for that amount. Further that the liquidator never made any express or implied promise for any remuneration to the plaintiff and the first reconstituted Board made no resolution for paying any remuneration to the plaintiff during the period that he worked under it. The Court of first instance decreed the suit in full. As regards the sum of Rs. 1,750 it allowed the same as a preferential claim. In respect of the claim of Rs. 1,800 as remuneration the Court found that no reference was actually made by the second reconstituted Board and so the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... costs and expenses of the winding up. Clause (1) of the first scheme provides as follows: "On the cost of the liquidation, the petitioning creditors' costs, the cost of convening the meeting of the creditors and shareholders for approving the scheme and the application for confirming the scheme if accepted and the liquidator's remuneration which has been estimated to come up to Rs. 7,000 being paid in the first instance, the winding up will be stayed and the liquidator will be discharged." Clause (14) of the second scheme provides as follows: "The amount due to the respective creditors and the debts due from the debtors shall be ascertained by the company but in case of any difference it will be referred to Mr. R. Roy whose decis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the second scheme Mr. R. Roy had no power to allow the plaintiff's claim as a preferential claim. The provisions of the said clause clearly indicates that Mr. Roy's decision was final. In our opinion the concurrent decision of the Courts below in respect of the sum of Rs. 1,750 is correct and we affirm it. On behalf of the respondent it was contended by Dr. Sen Gupta in respect of the sum of Rs. 1,800 claimed as remuneration, that as the plaintiff, was promised remuneration and as he actually did work, he was entitled to some remuneration on the basis of "quantum meruit." It appears that the plaintiff's case was based on a contract and "quantum meruit" was not pleaded in the plaint, besides no such ground was taken in the responde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates