1993 (8) TMI 266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) against 16 persons who are directors and/or officers and/ or auditors of the company. The learned judge has dismissed the misfeasance summons on the ground that the official liquidator had failed to give inspection of various documents referred to and relied upon by him in the misfeasance summons to respondent No. 15 although inspection was asked for from the year 1982 onwards. The present appeal is from that order of the learned single judge. In order to decide whether we should restore the misfeasance summons so dismissed by the learned single judge, we have to take into account the totality of circumstances relating to the misfeasance summons. The company was ordered to be wound up by an order dated June 23, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....imately, it is going to be extremely difficult to investigate and establish these charges. The manner of conducting these proceedings by the official liquidator also leaves much to be desired. The original misfeasance summons was against the 16 respondents. It was taken out in June, 1981. As early as in September, 1981, one of the respondents, viz., respondent No. 9, filed an affidavit in which he pointed out that the misfeasance summons was misconceived and was not maintainable because 8 of the 16 respondents had died prior to 1980 and prior to the taking out of the misfeasance summons. These were respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13 and 16. Thus, although the official liquidator became aware in September, 1981, of the death of these 8 r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the service was effected earlier, but because a proper service was not effected, the second service was effected on May 20, 1992. Be that as it may, the official liquidator did not call upon any of the respondents to take inspection of the documents in question. In fact, immediately after the order of the appellate court, respondent No. 1's advocate addressed a letter dated January 31, 1989, to the official liquidator asking for inspection of the documents referred to in the order of the learned single judge. No reply seems to have been given to the said letter. Ultimately, when the appeal reached hearing before us on June 24, 1993, we once again gave a chance to the official liquidator to give inspection and adjourned the appeal for four w....