9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies Corporation (UPSIC) and private entrepreneurs in the year 1975. The board of directors of the said company consisted of two nominee directors of the UPSIC, one director of the U.P. Finance Corporation (UPFC) and two directors of the private entrepreneurs. The company failed to run and a winding-up Petition No. 13 of 1986 was filed in this court by the promoter, UPSIC, for winding up of the company (in liquidation). This petition was allowed on December 7, 1987, by this court and the official liquidator attached to this court was appointed the liquidator. Notices were issued by the liquidator to all the directors of the company (in liquidation) for filing the statement of affairs. However, only one of the nominee directors of the UPSIC, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records were not available with them. The office report shows that other directors of the company could not be served as their whereabouts were not known. The other nominee director of the UPSIC, namely, V.K. Chaudhary, had retired from the UPSIC in the year 1991 and the said director also could not be served. This court, however, had directed learned counsel appearing for the UPSIC to get a chartered accountant appointed and to file a statement of affairs after inspecting the records from the office of the Registrar of Companies or the tax authorities. Efforts with regard to the same were made by the UPSIC but the chartered accountant has also failed to get any information as the relevant records were not available to him. The official ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, raised an objection to the prayer made by the official liquidator in the present application. He has stated that the bank has already filed a suit against the company (in liquidation) and obtained orders from this court under section 446 of the Act for proceeding with the hearing of the suit. It was, therefore, contended that in case the company against which the suit is pending is dissolved the same may affect the maintainability of the suit itself which is also against the guarantors who are parties to the said suit. In the alternative, learned counsel has contended that in case the company (in liquidation) is to be dissolved, the interest of the bank may be safeguarded to the extent that the suit be kept alive against the guarant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incipal debtor, the company, on the overdraft account and against the guarantors in respect thereof and during the pendency of the suit the company was dissolved and went into voluntary liquidation. One of the questions raised in the said case was once a suit against the principal debtor was allowed to be dismissed whether section 134 of the Contract Act came into play because the plaintiff had discharged the principal debtor and the guarantors, therefore, released of their liability. It was held that section 134 of the Contract Act had no application to the facts of the said case and where the principal debtor stood dissolved by operation of law, the discharge of a principal debtor does not operate as discharge of sureties. The plaintiff w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
