The court's jurisdiction in an application under Section 235 of the Companies Act, 1956, is exhausted once it directs the Central Government to appoint an inspector to investigate the affairs of the company under Section 237 of the Act, and the applicant cannot retrace his steps and ask the court to re-investigate and re-hear the application based on the inspector's report.

ORDER :- At the outset it is not very clear as to the circumstances under which this application is again posted before this Court. The main original petition and even so the application in question had each a chequered career of its own and it would be necessary to set out briefly the attendant facts relating to the above proceedings in order to have a fair conspectus of the material events.

2. O. P. 79 of 1951 was a petition filed under Section 188 of the Indian Companies Act 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act), by certain members of the company known as "the Nadar Press Ltd. Sivakasi"for winding up the same on the ground, among others, that the directors in management were prejudicially conducting the affairs of the company and they were bent upon enriching themselves by making secret profits, much to the detriment of the shareholders.

Whilst this petition was pending, O. P. 272 of 1952 was filed by one of the members of the company under Section 153-C of the old Act, inter alia, for appointing an administrator to carry on the business or the company and for termination of the services of the directors who were by then functioning. The above petitions and another application in the same proceedings, with which we are not concerned, came up for final hearing before Ramaswami Goundar J., who by his order dated 27th July 1953, appointed Administrators for the company till 80th April, 1955, and directed that the Board of Management should go out of office forthwith. He also dismissed O. P. 79 of 1951 which was the original petition for winding up. In the decretal order drafted Clause 9 provides -

"That there be no further orders in O. P. 278 of 1952 and the lame be and is hereby closed".

As the Administrators appointed could not complete the administration within the time granted, Appln. No. 463 of 1957 was taken for their discharge. Subramaniam J., by his order dated 27th February 1958, considered that the Administrators should continue till all the books of account and records were made available for use and scrutiny in Appln. No. 1694 of 1956 which was by then tiled and was pending. The learned Judge also observed that as soon as such accounts and records were made available, the Administrators will be discharged and the shareholders will be allowed to elect a fresh Board of directors. The net result is that the life of the administrators was extended for some more time. Mr. V. Thyagarajan, appearing for respondents 3 and 4 in this application, gave an undertaking, on their behalf, before Subramaniam J., that no plea will be taken that the application under S. 543 has ceased to be maintainable by reason of the discharge of the administrators and the election of a new board of directors, but the plea that the application cannot be entertained by reason of O. P. 272 of 1952 having ceased to be pending will still be pressed.

3. It is in the above background that this application (Appn. No. 1694 of 1956) was taken up for hearing by Ramaswami J. It is not clear as to the form in which the non-maintainability of the application was pressed before the learned Judge. But it appears that the jurisdiction of this Court to pass orders under the new Companies Act (1 of 1956) was raised and it was answered by the Court against those who propounded the theory. In order to properly appreciate the contentions of the respondents before me, it is necessary to set out the import, significance and purport of the order of Ramaswami J.

4. The application is one initiated on Judge's summons and made under S. 235 of the old Act read with Sections 406, 542 and 543 of the Indian Companies Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act). The applicant wanted to surcharge one or the other or the respondents for their acts of omission and commission during the time they held office. In fact, the applicants case is that the respondents are liable to recoup to the company a sum of about two lakhs and more by way of damages and compensation in respec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document