9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (3) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Companies Act, 1956, read with rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, has been filed on behalf of the official liquidator, Bombay, representing defendant No. 1. The plaintiff filed this interpleader suit on 6th May, 1976, praying that defendants be required to interplead concerning their claims to the amount of unpaid bills admittedly payable by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1, namely, Mass Communications and Marketing Pvt. Ltd., was doing the business of advertising agents and was accredited agent to various agencies of publications and it was getting advertisements of the products of the plaintiff and used to publish the same in various newspapers, magazines, periodicals, etc. It used to submit bills for such published advertis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said notice required the plaintiff not to pay the amount to defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 7 has also filed a suit at Madras against the plaintiff regarding the money in question claimed by defendant No. 1. The plaintiff, therefore, prays that, the defendants be restrained by an injunction from taking any proceeding against the plaintiff in relation to the subject-matter of the suit, that the High Court of Madras in Original Suit No. 181/75 filed by defendant No. 7 against the plaintiff be informed about the institution of the present suit to stay proceedings in that suit, and that the plaintiff be discharged from all liabilities in relation to the aforesaid amount of money upon the plaintiff delivering the same to such person or p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to entertain, or dispose of ( a )any suit or proceeding by or against the company; ( b )any claim made by or against the company (including claims by or against any of its branches in India); ( c )any application made under section 391 by or in respect of the company; ( d )any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may relate to or arise in course of the winding up of the company; whether such suit or proceeding has been instituted or is instituted, or such claim or question has arisen or arises or such application has been made or is made before or after the order for the winding up of the company, or before or after the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960 (65 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the various advertising agencies. Defendant No. 1-company, thus, has an interest in the amount in suit which may be limited to the extent of its commission in the amount payable by the plaintiff. According to the allegations contained in the plaint it appears that there was a contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 for payment of the amount in question, but other defendants laid claim to pay all such payments due to defendant No. 1 from the plaintiff and it is, under these circumstances, that the plaintiff in order to obtain full discharge has filed the present interpleader suit requiring the defendants to interplead amongst themselves. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has referred to the judgment in B.V. John v. Coir Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, there is no statutory enquiry and the subject-matter of the suit can be disposed of by the company court, i.e. , the Bombay High Court. The words "suit or proceeding" used in section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, are general and include an interpleader suit. Nothing has been pointed out to exclude interpleader suit from the operation of section 446 of the Companies Act. Who can institute an interpleader suit, and what is the procedure for it, reference may be made to section 88 and O. 35 of the C.P.C. Rule 4 of O. 35 of the C.P.C. is as under: "4. (1) At the first hearing the court may ( a )declare that the plaintiff is discharged from all liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is to be tried like any other suit against a company in liquidation and as such it would be a suit within the meaning of section 446 of the Companies Act maintainable only with the leave of the court in which liquidation proceedings against the company are pending. In Eastern Holdings Establishment of Vaduz v. Singer Friedlander Ltd. [1967] 2 All ER 1192 (Ch D) it was held that the issue of an interpleader summons to which a company in compulsory winding up is made a respondent, is a proceeding against the company within section 231 of the Companies Act, 1948, and accordingly cannot be made without the leave of the companies court being first obtained. I, therefore, hold that interpleader suit against the company (defendant No. 1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
