KAITHAL GRAIN AND BULLION EXCHANGE LTD , KAITHAL Vs. LACHHMAN DAS
LAWS(P&H)-1954-7-18
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 30,1954

KAITHAL GRAIN AND BULLION EXCHANGE LTD , KAITHAL Appellant
VERSUS
LACHHMAN DAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is petition filed by the Liquidator of the Kaithal Grain and Bullion Exchange Limited, Kaithal, in liquidation against eleven respondents including the Managing Director, Directors and Manager of the Company under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act, claiming that the respondents should be made to pay certain sums alleged to have been lost through their fraud or negligence.
(2.) It appears that the Company began business in April 1945 and, having practically closed its business in April, 1947 finally ceased business altogether in July, 1947. It appears from the statement of the Liquidator as a witness that a firm called Messrs Fateh Chand Ram Sarup, which does not now appear in the list of creditors, filed a winding-up petition against the Company in the High Court at Lahore, but probably owing to the conditions following on the partition no attempt was made to follow up this petition, and the present winding-up petition was filed in May, 1949 by the firm MessrsSudarshan Lal-Satish Chander on the basis of an unpaid debt due from the Company of Rs. 7,586/-. This firm appears to be only substantial creditor other than the Income Tax Department. The winding-up order was passed by this Court on the 11th of July, 1952. The only evidence produced in support of the petition was the statement of the Liquidator himself which was based almost entirely on what he was able to discover from the Company's account books supported by a minimum personal knowledge. On the other side two of the respondents Lachhman Das and Babu Ram have given evidence.
(3.) The first claim of the Liquidator in para 11 of the petition relates to a loss of Rs. 11,921/8/8 which is shown in the books of the Company in an entry dated the 1st of July, 1947. The evidence shows that in May, 1947, the Director had first passed a resolution that the Company should not take any further business from outside constituents, and this loss is shown as having been incurred in transactions entered into by the Company itself. If seems from the Liquidator's own evidence that he merely suspects that in fact this loss was incurred by the Directors individually in various transaction entered into on their own behalf, and that they had fraudulently debited their losses on this account to the Company. A mere suspicion of this kind without any concrete evidence to support it obviously cannot form the basis of a payment order against the Directors.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.