High Court Of Calcutta
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, SUHAS CHANDRA SEN
TULSIDAS MUNDHRA - Appellant
Versus
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR - Respondent
Appeal 440 Of 1979
Decided On : 12/22/1982
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order made and judgment delivered on December 10, 1979, by Mr. Justice Salil K. Roy Chowdhury. By the said order the learned Judge directed that Sri Tulsidas Mundhra be arrested to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. This order came to be passed because there was misfeasance.
Fact of the Case:
Sri Tulsidas Mundhra, as the order states, was the principal Director and Sri Haridas Mundhra, his brother, was another Director were found guilty of breach of the fiduciary manner in which the Directors are supposed to act. Mr. Justice A. K. Basu examined the judgment debtor under Order 21 of the Civil P. C. and certain facts came out which indicate that the gross income of the appellant was Rs. 70,000/- but his assessable income came to about Rs. 15,000/-per month, according to him.
Finding of the Court:
The appellant will go on paying as above until the decretal amount is paid and the order of detention will remain suspended. In default of payment of the first instalment by 30th June, 1983 and/ or in default of payment of any instalment, the stay will stand vacated. If a substantial amount of the decree is liquidated by thus process, the appellant judgment-debtor would be at liberty to move the court for reduction of the sentence or suspension of sentence for rest of the time.
Issues: Whether the appellant came within the mischief of Clause (a) or Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 51 of the Civil P. C. Whether the appellant came within the mischief of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 51 of the Civil P. C. Whether the learned Judge had properly exercised his discretion in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The intention of the Legislature is clear, on the language used that intention becomes manifest if we compare and contrast the requirements of Clauses (a) and (b) with Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 51 of the Civil P. C. In this case on this aspect we are in respectful agreement with the observations of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court where the Madras High Court expressed the view that if a director occupied a fiduciary position in relation to the members of a company, he was liable to account to them.
Final Decision: The appellant will go on paying a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per year payable in half-yearly instalment of Rs. 20,000/- until the satisfaction of decree or further order of the Court. In default of payment of the first instalment by 30th June, 1983 and/ or in default of payment of any instalment, the stay will stand vacated.
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order made and judgment delivered on December 10, 1979, by Mr. Justice Salil K. Roy Chowdhury. By the said order the learned Judge directed that Sri Tulsidas Mundhra be arrested to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. This order came to be passed because there was misfeasance. The order was to the following effect ;"this Court doth hereby declare that the above named respondent Haridas Mundra and Gopidas Mundra and Tulsidas Mundra as the Directors of the said Company and in particular the said Haridas Mundra also as the proprietor of the said company had misappropriated, retained or become liable or accountable for the money or property of the said company or are guilty of misfeasance and breach of trust in relation to the said company in (i) that the respondent Directors of the said company in particular the said Haridas Mundhra made secret profits and/or obtained personal advantage by causing two lacs and ninety thousand shares of Rupees ten and valued at Rupees twenty nine lacs to be allotted in the name of F. C. Osier (India) Ltd. , and wrongfully utilising the said shares for his/their personal gain and/or in making illegitimate profits by dealing with the said companies shares and/or by issuing or causing to be issued shares scripts of the said company fraudulent entry and without consideration to the extent of sixty five thousand shares of Rupees ten each valued at Rupees six lacs and fifty thousand and further extra shares to the extent of sixty three thousand and five hundred shares of rupees ten each valued at Rupees six lacs and thirty five thousand and (ii) that the Directors of the said company and the said Haridas Mundhra in particular are liable and accountable for loss of shortage of assets of the said company to the extent of at least Rupees sixty three lacs fifty thousand five hundred and thirty nine and ninety paise which the said company should have possessed at the rate of winding up having regard to paid up shares capital and the loan obtained on mortgage and the value of the Tea Gardens sold and the value of equity of redemption realised as mentioned in the statement of particulars and set out in the Schedule hereunder written whereby the sums mentioned in the said Schedule became wholly lost to the said company as insolvent on the sixteenth day of June in the year, one thousand nine hundred and sixty one and it is further ordered that the said respondents do jointly and severally contribute to the assets of the said company and do pay to the applicant all such sums as found liable to contribute to such assets as mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii) as aforesaid together with interest on such sums at the rate six per cent per annum as from the several dates on which the said sums are payable until payment. "
( 2 ) SRI Haridas Mundhra, as the order states, was the principal Director and Sri Tulsidas Mundhra, his brother, was another Director were found guilty of breach of the fiduciary manner in which the Directors are supposed to act. Mr. Justice A. K. Basu examined the judgment debtor under Order 21 of the Civil P. C. and certain facts came out which indicate that the gross income of the appellant was Rs. 70,000/- but his assessable income came to about Rs. 15,000/-per month, according to him. The appellant had employed an accountant. He had an office at the Tagore Castle and his wife was a Director of several companies and further the appellant, Sri Tulsidas Mundhra, was also a Director of several companies which had all gone into liquidation and in most of these companies, Sri Haridas Mundhra and other members of his family were interested. It also appears from the said examination as also from the subsequent examination by Mr. Justice Salil K. Roy Chowdhury under Section 51 of the Code that the appellant stays in a flat in Southern Avenue, which was quite spacious. Furthermore, he and his family members used to travel by Air for persona
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.