9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by an order dated July 22, 1977. The undertaking of petitioner No. 1 had been acquired by petitioner No. 2 by virtue of the Maruti Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1980 (Act 64 of 1980), inclusive of the right, title and interest excepting the liabilities. Respondent No. 1 was an employee of petitioner No. 1. He was paid a sum of Rs. 6,247 (Rs. 2,247 plus Rs. 4,000 on account of leave encashment and supervision charges respectively). The said payment was made under the orders of respondent No. 3, Shri B. M. Pant, the then general manager of petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 2, Shri S. M. Rege, who was the secretary of petitioner No. 1 at the relevant time, was asked to render his explanation as to how the payments had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated March 27, 1987, with the consent of the parties, it was ordered that the statement of Shri B. M. Pant, respondent No. 3, who appeared as RW-2 in C. P. No. 60 of 1982, will be read as evidence in the instant case also. Issue No. 1 : This issue was tried as a preliminary issue and the same was decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents by the learned company judge, vide his order dated October 12, 1984. Issue No. 2 : This issue has to be decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in view of the order dated July 22, 1977, passed by the learned company judge in Company Petition No. 126 of 1977, whereby the official liquidator attached to this court was appointed as the provisional l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d these were made by the concerned officer without their knowledge or consent. He also deposed that there was no valid authorisation by the board of directors or an order by the managing director for payment of the amount in dispute. In his cross-examination, he admitted that some payments were made to Sarvshri Ashok Gulati and Mohinder Singh and he had also filed claim petitions against them, but he pleaded ignorance if those were dismissed in default His memory failed him when a question was put to him that similar payments were also made to Sarvshri Vijay Sharma, P. R. Azad, Kaul, G. S. Kalra and many others. . Respondent No. 2 appeared as R.W-1 and stated that there was no resolution passed by the board of directors authorising the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem on account of leave encashment and supervision charges, but he was not aware as to what had happened to those cases. In his cross-examination, he conceded that the cheque for Rs. 5,000, which was drawn in his favour on account of leave encashment, was signed by him and Shri J. K. Pahuja, finance manager. It is correct that the payment towards leave encashment and supervision charges was not made under a regular resolution passed by the board of directors. It is also correct to say that the managing director of petitioner No. 1 did not issue any written orders authorising the payments. The managing director, in his letter dated August 8, 1978 (exhibit P.W.-3), addressed to the official liquidator, stated that the payments were not auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
