TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (9) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Companies Act were initiated. The matter was tried by a learned single judge of this court and it was ultimately held that Mulkh Raj Mehta, director, was liable to a sum of Rs. 10,000 individually, Dewan Chand Magon, director, to a sum of Rs. 10,000 and Gian Chand Magon to Rs. 6,000. All the three directors were made liable individually and joint liability was not imposed. This order of the learned judge was appealed against by Mulkh Raj Mehta, Dewan Chand Magon and Gian Chand Magon in L.P.A. No. 359 of 1966, and the same was also challenged by the official liquidator in L.P.A. No. 364 of 1966. The appeal of the directors was that they were not liable and the order fixing their liability be set aside, whereas the appeal on behalf of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings against the estate of Mulkh Raj Mehta on the ground that the Letters Patent Bench fixed the joint liability of all three directors. In these execution proceedings objections were taken by the legal representatives of Mulkh Raj Mehta that the order of the Letters Patent Bench having been passed against a dead person, the estate of Mulkh Raj Mehta is not liable for any such liability which was fixed against a dead person. During the pendency of the proceedings, the land which was originally owned by Mulkh Raj Mehta was attached and auctioned, but the sale was not confirmed and the amount realised out of sale proceeds had been deposited in the court. The learned counsel for the official liquidator vehemently contends that the order of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d if it be taken as an order not amounting to a decree even then no order can be passed against a dead person enhancing his liability. From whatever angle the matter may be viewed, it is obvious that the decision of the Letters Patent Bench, as far as Mulkh Raj is concerned, is a nullity. His legal representatives are well within their rights to take this objection when the property belonging to them is being attached in pursuance of an order which was passed against a dead person. Mulkh Raj Mehta admittedly died on April 21, 1969. The moment he died his property vested in his legal representatives because inheritance cannot remain in abeyance. On that date there was no liability on his property. The liability created subsequently was cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that until and unless the counsel for the petitioner can show that there is any provision in the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, or in the Companies Act, contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which may be applicable to the question of abatement of a case the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will certainly apply. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision in the Companies Act or the Rules which govern the question of abatement arising in cases under the Companies Act. That being so, in view of the provisions of rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, the provisions of abatement as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, will apply to the petition under the Companie....