SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Mad) 585

S.SWAMIKKANNU
V. Natarajan – Appellant
Versus
N. Salai Muthu – Respondent


ORDER

S. Swamikkannu, J.

1. This is an interesting Civil Revision Petition in which a principle of "Doctrine of Notice" has been the subject matter of argument advanced by both the sides. The Uma Investment Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act was in existence and the same became defunct and therefore an Official Liquidator had been appointed in this case. The main question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition, is whether it is the Director of the defunct company who has to be given the notice of the rights and claims of that company as original decree-holder as per the provision of 0.21, r. 6 of the C.P.C., or the Official Liquidator who had taken the reigns of administration on 22nd April, 1976 on the petition filed for winding up the company, namely, C.P. No. 441 of 1976. The preliminary decree had been passed in the suit on 9th April, 1974. The said preliminary decree had been assigned by Uma Investments Private Limited, namely the company which is undergoing liquidation, in favour of the respondents in this revision petition. Now, a question has arisen as to whether these respondents who are ready and willing to pay the a














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top