UMASHANKAR DURGAPRASAD SARAF THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF RAI BAHADUR SHREERAM DURGAPRASAD COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act the order dated 29.09.1985 passed by Company Judge of this Court on Company Application Nos. 17 of 1993 and 27 of 1994 granting applications moved by respondent-Official Liquidator to bring legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1 and of one of his legal heirs has been questioned. The legal representatives are permitted to be brought on record in Company Application Nos. 27 of 1986 under Section 542 and 543 of Companies Act.

(2.) Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durgaprasad Limited is the company being wound up as per orders dated 16.11.1981 in Company Petition 1 of 1981. The Official Liquidator on behalf of said company filed application No. 27 of 1986 on 04.11.1986 under Sections 542 and 543 of Companies Act 1956, against deceased Durgaprasad son of Shreeram Saraf and 6 other persons. On 21.11.1986 Company Judge issued notices in the matter. The Official Liquidator took out misfeasance summons dated 19.02.1987. Respondent no.1 therein namely said Durgaprasad expired on 25.07.1988. His Advocate filed Counsel Note dated 19.08.1988 and communicated that death.

(3.) Because of that pursis application was moved by Official Liquidator seeking direction to furnish names of legal representatives of deceased. It was stated that two of his heirs were already on record. On 27.01.1989 three names were supplied. Application No. 21 of 1989 was then filed on 17.02.1989 and it was allowed on 24.02.1989. It appears that accordingly three names i.e. Vithaldas, Ramkrishna and Murlidhar all sons of deceased Durgaprasad were substituted on record as respondents 1-A, 1-B, 1-C. In the process names of two ladies in the family were not disclosed. Another application was then filed vide Company Application 17 of 1993 pointing out that these ladies were not impleaded. But on 03.09.1993 Company Judge directed issuance of notices to proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1 Durgaprasad. It appears that order dated 03.09.1993 issuing notice to proposed legal representatives was not on any application. On 17.09.1993 after application came to be filed an order issuing notice was again passed. Office of this Court accordingly issued notice dated 05.10.1993 calling upon legal representatives to show cause. Along with that notice copy of application dated 17.09.1993 was also supplied. In the meanwhile and on 26.01.1993 heir Vithaldas (respondent 1-A) had also expired. Because of that death Misc. Civil Application No. 27 of 1994 was moved by Official Liquidator. He sought leave to bring on record legal representatives of Vithaldas but there his serial number was mentioned as 1-B. He also gave names of Vinodkumar and Vinitkumar, both sons of Vithaldas and Smt. Veenadevi daughter of Vithaldas, as those legal representatives. These three persons are appellants 7, 8 and 9 before this Court. The legal representatives filed their reply on 30.03.1995 opposing the application to bring legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1. Second reply was filed on 31.03.1995 by legal representatives of deceased Vithaldas opposing the similar application. Various objections were raised. Learned Company Judge after hearing counsel for the respondents before him including these legal representatives and counsel for Official Liquidator passed impugned order on 29.09.1995.