An order under S.543 of the Companies Act 1956 can be executed against the estate of the deceased Director in the hands of his legal representatives.

1. These two appeals arise out of an order on Application No. 33 of 1973 directing the appointment of a Receiver in respect of the properties of the respondents in that application. The matter arises this way. B.C.P. No. 11 of 1960 on the file of this Court was an application for winding up the Palai Central Bank Ltd. Two of the legal representatives of the 1st respondent in that application are the appellants in A. S. No. 332 of 1973; and one of the legal representatives of the 4th respondent in that application is the appellant in A. S. No. 432 of 1973. In B. C. P.11 of 1960, by an order of a learned judge of this Court, dated 5121960, the Bank as ordered to be wound up. Misfeasance Application No. 247 of 1963 was made on 41 1963 by the Liquidator, under S.543 of the Companies Act 1956 read with S.45-H of the Banking Companies Act. On 2 41965 there was an order on the said application declaring the respondents 1 and 4 In B.C.P. 11 of 1960 (it is unnecessary to notice the others, If any, made liable by the order) as liable for a sum of over Rs. 16,00,000/- in respect of the B-claim (vide Official Liquidator, Palai Central Bank Ltd, v. K. Joseph Augusti AIR. 1966 Ker.121). Respondents 1 and 4, preferred separate appeals. These were heard along with several other appeals. The appeals preferred by Respondents 1 and 4 were dismissed (subject to some minor relief afforded on the basis of the statements filed by the Liquidator regarding realisations effected). The judgment on appeal is reported in ILR.1973 (2) Kerala 268. After the appellate judgment, the 4th respondent died in October 1970. The 1st respondent died after the conclusion of the hearing and before delivery of the judgment on appeal, sometime in December 1968. There were petitions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, filed inter alia, by the legal representatives of Respondents 1 and 4. These applications were allowed and the matter is now pending in appeal before the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal Nos. 668 and 869 of 1971. E. A. No. 31 of 1973 was filed for execution, and in that, E. A. 33 of 1973 was filed for appointment of Receiver. It is on this tetter application that the Court passed the order appointing Receiver, which is the subject-matter of these appeals.

2. The contention strenuously urged by Counsel for the appellants is that in execution of an order passed under S.543 of the Companies Act 1956, no order such as the one under appeal, can be passed against the legal representatives of the Director or Directors proceeded against. On first blush, this strikes us to be a rather extreme proposition. S.634 of the Companies Act provides that any order made by the court under the Act, may be enforced in the same manner as decree made by the court, in a suit. Being so, we should have thought the ordinary mode of execution of a decree under the provisions of S.50 and the allied sections of the C.P.C. are open. But Counsel for the appellants, drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator, Supreme Bank Ltd. v. P. A. Tendolkar (dead) by L. Rs. and others (AIR. 1973 S.C.1104). There, proceedings under S.543 were started against several Directors. The Company Judge gave his decision on 8-11-1963, finding the Directors liable in respect of various claims in various amounts. There was an appeal to a Division Bench, which dismissed the same and an application for leave to appeal, under Art.133 of the Constitution was filed in respect of the appellate judgment. While the said application was pending, one of the Directors namely Sri. P. A. Tendolkar died on 10 8 1960. We are concerned to notice only the appeal eventually preferred to the Supreme Court by the legal representatives of the said Sri. Tendolkar. Discussing the liability of the legal representatives, the court observed:

"32. It will be seen that, while S.235 of the Act of 1913, like S.543 of the Companies Act of 1956, to which it corresponds, gives the power to the Cou