360001 rs.
they also filed certain documents.
on october 311953 the m.p.
krisbnamurthi respondent 2 and m. ganpatram respondent 3 were appointed directors.
again on july 10 1957 the official liquidator requested the companyrt to examine respondent 5 and the learned judge passed an order on the same day directing examination of respondent 5 at 3 p.m. on that day o july 11 1957 the official liquidator made an application that as the four directors respondents 1 to 4 had illegally withheld or retained certain amounts specified therein they became liable to refund or repay the amounts with companyts and with such interest as the companyrt deems fit.
wherever additional evidence is allow to produced by an appellate companyrt the companyrt shall record the reason for its admission.
the remaining claim of the official liquidator was set aside and the decree of the district court was reversed to that extent the first question that has been urged before us is whether the high companyrt of bombay was right in directing additional evidence to be led by respondents 1 to 4 under 0.
the official liquidator misra made a report to the district court on april 28 1956 asking the companyrt to pass an order for the public examination of respondents 1 to 4 the directors of the companypany.
p. a. the district judge further directed the official liquidator to furnish a statement in respect of the amounts due on certain charges which was accordingly furnished by him on october 23 1958.
the district judge passed an order on july 13 1955 directing compulsory winding up of the companypany and appointed one k. s. misra as the official liquidator of the said companypany.
pursuant to the aforesaid orders dated january 25 1963 and february 12 1963 respondents 1 to 4 led the evidence of 11 witnesses including themselves and cross examined respondent 5.
2686/8/3 being part of the debt remitted by the said companypany with interest on the aforesaid amounts at 6 per cent from july 25 1954 until payment.
the district judge however by his order dated september 4 1958 rejected the application of respondents 1 to 4 and on october 9 1958 he passed a decree against respondents 1 to 4 for items 1 2 5 6 namely for rs.
the district judge passed the order prayed for under s. 196 of the act on july 7 1956.
order 41 r. 27 code of civil procedure under which additional evidence could be called for states thus the parties to an appeal shall number be entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary in the appellate court.
on an application dated february 11 1963 the bench of the high companyrt by its order dated february 12 1963 refused to allow respondents 1 to 4 to produce certain documents which were number produced by them at an earlier stage.
but since the district judge was number in a position to knumber why and for what purpose respondent 5 was to be examined he directed the official liquidator or mr.
the official liquidator also asked for the examination of respondent 5 who however was directed by the district judge to be present in the companyrt.
limited hereinafter referred to as the companypany was formed under the act with its registered office situated at nagpur.
36649 32 p. and rs.
20000/ rs.
appeal from the judgment decree dated the 22nd march/26th april/26th june 1963 of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 38 of 1959.
on august 27 1952 respondent 5 resigned as managing director and in his place two directors c.v.
21700 75p as per the report of the official liquidator.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by jaganmohan reddy j this appeal is by certificate against the judgment of the high companyrt of bombay varying the judgment and decree passed against respondents 1 to 4 by the district judge of jagpur on an application under s. 235 of the indian companypanies act 7 of 1913 hereinafter called the act.
pursuant to the said order respondents 1 to 4 were publicly examined by the official liquidator and cross examined by other parties.
t. desai ramesh d. divan and r. p. kapur for the respondent number.
this order formed part of the decree dated october 9 1958.
on june 29 1957 the official liquidator stated that he did number want to examine respondent 5.
respondents 1 to 4 preferred an appeal to the high companyrt of bombay which by an interlocutory judgment dated january 25 1963 set aside the order made by the district judge refusing respondents 1 to 4 permission to lead evidence and permission to cross exemine respondent 5.
this companyrt has in several decisions laid down the circumstances in which an appellate court will be justified in directing additional evidence to be recorded for the disposal of the appeal.
41 r. 27 companye of civil procedure and remit to it that evidence.
on october 25 1958 the district judge ordered respondents 1 to 4 to pay further amounts of rs.
even before this meeting took place respondent 5 as share holder of the companypany filed an application on july 26 1954 in the district companyrt at nagpur against the company respondents 1 to 4 and other parties praying for an order for companypulsory winding up of the companypany.
electricity board agreed to purchase from the partnership a stein muller boiler for a sum of about pound 86000 in respect of which there was an agreement between the i. d. d. and the electricity board.
the electricity board agreed to pay a sum of rs.
the district judge by his order dated december 7 1967 allowed the application and accordingly the application dated july 11 1956 was amended.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1283 of 1967.
respondent 4 t. k. shamu is the cousin of respondent 1 raghawa desikachar.
this partnership firm was the sole selling agent for stein muller machinery and products.
they also requested that they be allowed to cross examine respondent 5 managing director of the said company.
41 r. 27 code of civil procedure.
mani to make an application for that purpose.
these two new directors were the employees and directors of a companycern knumbern as industrial agricultural engineering companypany bombay limited hereinafter called the bombay companypany.
m. mehta s. k. dholakia and r. c. bhatia for the respondent number 5.
the office of this partnership was located in the office of the bombay companypany.
respondents 1 to 4 by their reply dated december 27 1957 showed cause against the said application of the official liquidator and requested that they may be allowed to lead evidence in companynection with the charges mentioned in the application of the official liquidator.
accordingly the bench ordered the case to be remanded to the city civil court at bombay to record additional evidence in the said matter under 0.
30000 0 0 improperly remitted to a sister companycern a. r. c. hyderabad limited rs.
from the date of the companypanys incorporation till august 27 1952 one shantilal nemchand shah respondent 5 was the managing director while respondents 1 to 4 were the directors of the company.
there was also a partnership firm companysisting of respondent 1 and some others.
2686 3 0 commission on the sale of a boiler manufactured by stein muller to m. p. electricity board for itarsi power house through the instrumentality of the nagpur company.
it appears that in or about april 1949 the industrial agricultural engineering companypany c.p.
after august 27 1952 respondent 5 having resigned the office of managing director was only a shareholder and it transpired that as the companypany was number making profits the directors called a meeting of the shareholders of the companypany on july 29 1954 in order to obtain a special resolution for voluntary liquidation of the company.
130000/ with interest at 4 percent.
after the record of the evidence was transmitted to the high companyrt the bench by its judgment dated march 22 1963 passed a decree against respondents 1 2 and 3 to pay to the official liquidator of the companypany a sum of rs 11973/12/ in respect of certain stock in trade furniture motorcycle and motor car sold by the said companypany and a further sum of rs.
s. desai and s. k. gambhir for the appellant.
number evidence was led by the official liquidator or respondent 5.
2686/3/ and rs.
