1983 (11) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stood as guarantor. According to the official liquidator, Rs. 6,000 is still due to the company under the agreement which respondents No. 1 and 2 have failed to pay. Respondents No. 3 to 5 are the ex-directors of the company who were sought to be made personally liable under sections 542 and 543 of the Companies Act. Anand J., however, directed that proceedings against them would remain held over. Mr. Nand Kishore is not pressing these proceedings and states that if need be, appropriate independent action will be initiated. As regards respondents Nos. 1 and 2, notices were issued to them. The order dated November 3, 1982, of Anand J. shows that it had been reported that both these respondents had died. Thereafter, the official liquida....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ost a year back. Mr. Nand Kishore, however, has contended that Order 22, rule 4, applies to suits only and that the present proceedings being under section 446 of the Companies Act, they cannot be treated as a suit. However, he ignores that as per provisions contained in section 141, CPC, the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits has to be followed as far as it can be made applicable in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. In other words, proceedings set in motion on moving of applications, are as well governed by the same procedure as is applicable to suits, unless there is anything in the context to suggest otherwise, or they cannot be made applicable. None such has been shown which should render the present pro....